Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Iron Ore

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Power if he will state the cost of importing iron ore from abroad into the United Kingdom from January to September, 1960, compared with the same period in 1959; and from which countries these imports were secured.

THE COST AND MAIN SOURCES OF SUPPLY OF IRON ORE IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM IN THE TWO PERIODS MENTIONED WERE:—








January to September, 1959
January to September, 1960








Tons
£ (c.i.f.)
Tons
£ (c.i.f.)


Sweden
…
…
…
…
2,312,939
13,269,723
3,590,218
18,721,883


Canada
…
…
…
…
1,787,581
8,910,014
2,506,406
12,127,917


Algeria
…
…
…
…
1,044,382
5,471,360
1,554,523
6,953,081


Venezuela
…
…
…
…
905,875
5,332,942
1,216,965
6,959,642


Brazil
…
…
…
…
…
410,392
2,992,787
450,343
3,075,361


Sierra Leone
…
…
…
…
510,336
2,250,765
565,744
2,509,798


Others*
…
…
…
…
2,303,516
10,733,437
3,685,358
16,227,920


Total
…
…
…
9,275,021
48,961,028
13,569,557
66,575,602


* Includes Norway, France, Portugal, Spain, French West Africa, Tunisia, Morocco, Liberia, and other Commonwealth and foreign countries not listed.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Power what plans the Iron and Steel Board has for the maintenance of reasonably adequate reserves of home iron ore for use by the South Wales steel industry.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): The industry in South Wales would normally draw its main supplies of home ore from the Oxfordshire and South West Northamptonshire fields. It is impossible to forecast technical and economic developments into the distant future. But the Iron and Steel Board estimates, in the light of its

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is some suggestion of increased iron ore mining in the Stamford area of Lincolnshire? In view of the Government's declared policy to increase trading amongst the Outer Seven, does he not think that it would be more in keeping with that policy if we increased the importation of iron ore, thus helping those countries to buy from us? Would not this save the countryside and promote exports?

Mr. George: The hon. Member's Question asks for certain facts and he will have these facts in the Official Report. The other matters which he has raised relate to a totally different Question.

Following is the information:

present knowledge, that the reserves in these fields would meet the demands of the industry in South Wales and elsewhere for some fifty to sixty years.

Mr. Marten: Will the Minister take steps to see that the iron and steel industry uses the maximum amount of imported ore in order to keep this as a reserve for a rainy day? Does not he agree that the importing of iron ore will regenerate world trade and also be a great help to British shipping? Will he bring these factors to the attention of the Iron and Steel Board?

Mr. Wood: These issues have been in front of the inquiry of which my hon. Friend will be aware, and the decision will be reached in the light of those and other matters.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I commend the suggestion that it might be advisable to import such ore and keep it for a rainy day, but do not the same facts and the same reasons apply in the case of coal and oil?

Mr. Wood: That is a rather different question.

Nuclear Power Station

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Power what factors decided him in a recent case to authorise capital expenditure by the Central Electricity Authority on a nuclear, rather than a conventional, power station; what consideration he gave to the availability of coal for the purpose; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the White Paper "The Nuclear Power Programme" published in June, 1960.

Mr. Oliver: Does that convey all that this Question implies? I have forgotten the principal provisions of the White Paper.

Mr. George: As the White Paper made clear, the demand for fuel for electricity generation is continually increasing. In the long run we shall therefore need increasing supplies of nuclear power. In about ten years' time it should be cheaper to generate base load in nuclear stations than in conventional stations, provided that we achieve the technological progress that we expect. To secure this we must continue to build nuclear stations on an adequate scale.

Oil

Mr. Ainsley: asked the Minister of Power what were the total imports of oil into the United Kingdom in the years 1957, 1958, and 1959, respectively; and what are his estimates of imports in the next five years.

Mr. George: Thirty-nine million tons, 45 million tons, and 52 million tons,

respectively. I could not estimate imports for succeeding years but such indications as I have suggest that the rate of growth would be slowed down.

Mr. Ainsley: In view of the figures which the Minister has given, and the figures that he proposes in his estimates, how can the National Coal Board plan its resources for the next five years? Is it going to be based on an expanding industrial economy, or upon a stagnating or declining industrial economy such as we have today?

Mr. George: The National Coal Board has already made its plan until 1965, and my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that that plan will be very far out.

Mr. Stones: asked the Minister of Power if he will institute a public inquiry into the costing and pricing policy of the oil industry.

Mr. Wood: No. Sir.

Mr. Stones: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if the inquiry for which I have asked were instituted the findings would either prove or disprove the charges that are being made, that fuel oil is being dumped in this country at an uneconomic price in an effort to capture to a greater extent the fuel market to the disadvantage of our indigenous fuel industry?

Mr. Wood: I am convinced, without an inquiry, that fuel prices are not being artificially forced down. First, I am convinced that the fuel oil business is remunerative, for the oil companies. Secondly, I am quite clear that prices in Britain are higher than on the Continent, which is open to the influx of Russian oil at cheap prices. Lastly, while motor spirit prices have fallen in the last ten years, fuel oil prices are in fact higher than they were in 1950.

Coal and Oil (Consumption)

Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Power what is the percentage increase in the consumption of coal and oil, respectively, during the current year.

Mr. Wood: In the first ten months of 1960, inland consumption of coal has increased by 6 million tons, or 4 per cent.


over consumption last year. Oil consumption has increased by 8 million tons of coal equivalent, or 17 per cent. over 1959.

Mr. Fitch: In view of these alarming figures, can the Minister say what plans he has for restricting oil and helping the coal industry? Is he aware that the German Government have already taken action by imposing a tax on fuel oil?

Mr. Wood: I do not see any case for restricting oil at a time when the demand for coal next year is likely to be considerably higher than production.

Petrol and Fuel Oil

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Power what was the cost in foreign exchange of importing petrol and fuel oil, respectively, into the United Kingdom during 1959.

Mr. George: It is not possible to isolate these figures, but there were also substantial exports of petrol and fuel oil and the net foreign exchange cost is probably small.

Mr. Boyden: Because of the American currency difficulties, have the American Government, or any American firms, made approaches to the Government to alter the basis of the arrangement made at Suez in respect of foreign oil?

Mr. George: That question should be addressed to another Department.

Mr. Manuel: Which one?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Gasification

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to investigate further the possibilities of the total gasification of coal, in the light of the apparent conflict of views between the Wilson Committee and the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy.

Mr. George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) on 28th November.

Mr. Albu: Is not the Minister aware that many people think that the Wilson Committee Report shows an insufficient sense of the importance and urgency of

this subject? Is there not a need for a much more co-ordinated policy?

Mr. George: There is no conflict between the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy and the Wilson Committee. Both recommend that work on gasification should be pursued, and negotiations to have that work pursued are in progress now.

Production and Stocks

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Power whether he will state the estimate he has made of 1961 production and demand for coal; what diminution of unsold stocks is anticipated in that year; what is the current value of these stocks and the tonnage of undistributed coal and coke held by the National Coal Board; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Wood: In 1961 the level of production may fall slightly. With demand at much the same level as in 1960, the Board expects to reduce its stocks by slightly more than this year. On 19th November the Board held 31·8 million tons of coal and 5·2 million tons of coke, valued at about £125 million.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend say, in regard to his assessment of the consumption of coal during 1961, what level of employment or underemployment in industry generally he has presupposed? For example, has he based his figures on a continuance of pretty widespread short-term working in such industries as the motor industry?

Mr. Wood: I have been extremely cautious in my estimate, as my hon. Friend realises. I said that demand will be about the same as this year. I do not think that it will increase very much and I do not think that it will be reduced very much. I should not like to go further than that.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Power how much stocked coal has been sold since 1st September, 1960.

Mr. George: During the eleven weeks ended 19th November, undistributed stocks fell by 2·9 million tons.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the improvement in the lifting of stocks, can the Parliamentary Secretary be quite sure that there has been no closure of pits with good reserves simply because they are uneconomic temporarily?

Mr. George: The decision as to which mines are to be closed in any given year is always taken in the previous year. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the fact that we lifted a certain amount from stock during these months will have had any effect on such decisions.

National Coal Board (Losses)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Power, having regard to the loss forward of £64 million on Coal Board accounts at 30th June, 1960, what is the rate of loss since suffered; and whether these growing deficits are to be financed by new borrowing or otherwise.

Mr. Wood: The Board's third quarter results are usually adverse and those of the fourth favourable. I expect the fourth quarter of this year also to reflect the improvement which should follow the recent price increases. The figures will not be available for publication until after the end of the Board's accounting year. The Board's accumulated deficit is meanwhile covered by internal resources and arisings.

Mr. Nabarro: Why cannot we have quarterly financial accounts from the National Coal Board? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that a very much larger international trading company, Shell Royal Dutch, for example, publishes quarterly accounts, including profit and loss accounts? Would not that be a good example for a nationalised industry to follow? Why does my right hon. Friend persist in protecting the Coal Board in these matters?

Mr. Wood: I do not think that I protect the Coal Board. I think my hon. Friend realises that the number of concerns which produce these quarterly figures is very few.

Mr. Nabarro: No.

Mr. Wood: It is so. The Act requires the Board to provide accounts and a statement once a year. The rest is up to the Board. It is for the Board to decide.

Pits (Closures)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Power what consultative machinery exists between his Department and the National Coal Board in respect of the closure of a pit or pits.

Mr. Wood: Colliery closures are entirely a matter for the National Coal Board. The Board keeps me informed about the total size of its programme and, as soon as it decides which individual pits are to be closed, the information is passed on to the Board of Trade and Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the social consequences of the closure of pits, or even of one single pit, why should not the Minister be consulted so that he can take account of these consequences and advise the Board whether it is desirable to proceed with closure? Why should not hon. Members in this assembly be informed of what is going on even in their own constituencies?

Mr. Wood: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will be well aware of the reasons why full information cannot be given in too great detail in advance. But to put his fears at rest, I am of course in constant communication with the Board. I discussed this matter well ahead, but the important point is that this is a decision of the Board. I am informed in good time so that arrangements can be made for alternative employment.

Mr. Shinwell: This is very important indeed. Suppose in a particular area, say in my constituency, the Board contemplates closing a pit or pits. What am I to do to protect my constituents? If I go to the Minister he says "I have, got nothing to do with it, go to the Board". If I go to the Board, it tells me to mind my own business. What is one to do?

Mr. Wood: One important case in point is the pit at West Wylam. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Board of Trade has scheduled the area as a development area to take account of the possible unemployment that will arise from that closure.

Manpower

Mr. Blyton: asked the Minister of Power if he has any plans to arrest the drift of young men and mechanically skilled labour from the coal mines.

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of power to what extent he estimates that the continued decline in manpower in the coal industry will result in a shortage of domestic coal this winter.

Mr. George: The manning of the coal industry is a matter for the National Coal Board, which is already making vigorous efforts to improve recruitment and reduce wastage. The Board considers that manpower difficulties are not likely to cause shortages of house coal this winter.

Mr. Blyton: As the fear of insecurity in the coalfields arises from Government policy in relation to fuel matters, does the Minister think that he can sit back complacently when young men under 31 are leaving at the rate of 32,000 a year? Does the Minister expect the pits to be run with old men by 1965?

Mr. George: The reduction in numbers in the coal mines is partly the result of the Board's restriction on recruiting to meet the reduced demand for coal. Divisions generally were given authority to resume recruiting in June of this year. All divisions requiring men are now conducting vigorous local recruitment campaigns, and the National Coal Board has some reason to be satisfied with the results.

Mr. Grey: The Minister said that he would reply to Questions No. 11 and 12 together, but I ask him to look at No. 12 again and answer it, because what he said is not an answer to my Question. Is he aware that the decline in manpower in the industry is due to the failure of the Government to provide an adequate fuel policy? If there is any grave shortage of coal in winter, the responsibility will be his and that of the Government. Is he further aware that the reason why many miners are leaving the industry is their fear for the future of the industry? Will he make it quite clear to all and sundry that there is still a great future for the industry, that we shall always need large quantities of coal, and that the industry itself will always be the mainstay of the economy of this country?

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman's Question requested information regarding the effect of the declining manpower on the supply of domestic coal this winter. While it is impossible to quantify the effect of the industry's current manpower difficulties on house coal supplies, the Board does not think it will cause a shortage this winter. With regard to the second part of the hon.

Gentleman's supplementary question, I agree that the confidence of young men in the future of the industry is not helped by pessimistic forecasts about output. The Government's view is that the lower 1965 figure in the Revised Plan for Coal, which envisages 200 million tons of mining capacity at that time, will not be far out.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the Minister given serious consideration to the growing experience in the coalfields, that in particular skilled men, who are becoming ever more essential in this mechanised period of mining, find it much more attractive to go to other industries, where the relative scale of earnings of maintenance men, skilled fitters and the rest, is adverse to the National Coal Board? In these circumstances, will he give serious consideration to that aspect?

Mr. George: I would not seek to minimise, nor would the Board, the gravity of the problem which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but the matter of wages is one for negotiation between the National Coal Board and the unions concerned.

Mr. Blyton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Revised Plan for Coal

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Power what consultations took place between his Department and the National Coal Board regarding the Revised Plan for Coal, based upon estimates of 300 million tons of coal equivalent in 1965; and whether any amendment of the total energy needs is now contemplated.

Mr. Wood: In preparing the Revised Plan, the Board consulted my Department about the estimates of total energy requirements. There are no changes in these estimates which would justify the Board in aiming at a mining capacity in 1965 lower than 200 million tons.

Mr. Slater: Is the Minister aware that every care must be taken to safeguard against the depletion in manpower in this industry if we are to reach the target stated by the Minister? If we are to keep the men in the industry, does the


Minister not agree that every consideration ought to be given to the question of shorter hours?

Mr. Wood: As my hon. Friend explained, that is a matter which is up to the Board and the unions to negotiate themselves.

Production

Mr. Kelley: asked the Minister of Power if he will fix a target of production for the coal industry of 200 million tons per annum by 1965, in order to meet national requirements and to give confidence to the industry, thus improving prospects for labour retention and recruitment.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that the Revised Plan for Coal can still be fulfilled; and what variations he expects.

Mr. Wood: I do not fix targets, but I think the National Coal Board is right in continuing to aim at a mining capacity of not less than 200 million tons in 1965, as stated in the Revised Plan.

Mr. Kelley: I thank the Minister for that reply. I should like to know what steps he would take to protect this figure from the kind of competition to which he referred in a previous Answer.

Mr. Wood: As I suggested just now, I do not think that this figure needs protection at a time when the demand for coal is higher than the production of coal.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Minister aware that Professor Robinson and the chairman of the Institution of Gas Engineers both take the view that on present trends the figure required by 1965 will not be more than 280 million tons of coal equivalent? This is also the view of the National Union of Mineworkers. There is a serious discrepancy between the Minister's estimates and those of others who are expert in this matter. Could not the Minister go more thoroughly into this question in order to see who is right? Most of the Government's forecasts have been wrong in the past, and there is nothing to suggest that they are right now.

Mr. Wood: I do not think that there is a serious discrepancy here. I have

suggested that the figure will be 300 million tons coal equivalent in the later 1960s, and they suggest that it will be 280 million tons in 1965, which I think is too pessimistic. It would be optimistic to rely on it, but if we had, up to 1965, anything like the advance in energy requirements that we have had this year, we should need not 300 million but 340 million tons coal equivalent in 1965. I admit that that is optimistic, but it puts the matter into perspective, and shows that the estimate of 280 million tons is unduly pessimistic.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Space Research

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Aviation Whether he will make a further statement regarding the progress he is making towards a British research programme into outer space.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is now in a position to make a further statement on the Government's plans for space research.

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation Whether Blue Streak will be made available, on suitable terms and conditions, to the European Space Research Organisation as a satellite launcher.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): At present I am unable to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) and Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 7th November.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what significance there is in the conference which Sir Harrie Massey has recently been attending?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That conference was concerned with the analogous subject of space research. At that conference there was agreement amongst all the European nations participating to go forward with research into space. What we are concerned with here is the launcher.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the Minister know that the Bell Telephone Company of America has prepared a scheme for a system of communication satellites which


will cost about £70 million and will produce a profit of about £1,000 million a year, and that we are to have no share in this unless the Government do something quickly? Is not it carrying Governmental complacency too far to do nothing whatever about this subject of space research when everybody else will cash in on it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: On the question of space research, as such, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I have given. As for the launcher, there is some advantage in having conversations with our friends on the decision to go forward.

Mr. Strauss: The Minister has referred to his previous Answer, but in that Answer he never said anything about the possibility of allowing Blue Streak to be used by the European Space Research Organisation. I would ask him to make it available. Is there any reason, in principle, why Blue Streak—which appears to be the only launcher for satellites that we have at present—should not be made available, under proper terms and conditions, to any European effort organised on these lines?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the decision were made to go ahead with Blue Streak as a satellite launcher it would be available to the European Space Research Organisation.

Mr. John Hall: Can my right hon. Friend comment on the statement of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) that there is a profit of £1,000 million a year to be made on this project?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall refrain from commenting on such matters.

Manchester Airport

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware of the delay and the suspension of service that arises through Manchester Airport having only one major runway; and when it is proposed to construct an alternative runway so that aircraft of all sizes may land without interference from crosswinds.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): No, Sir. This is a matter in the first place for the Manchester Corporation, which owns and operates the

airport. My right hon. Friend has received no proposals from it about a new alternative runway.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend not think that this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs? We have here a major airport which is not capable, under certain weather conditions, of receiving aircraft larger than the Pionair. Is it not time that something was done about it?

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. The utilisation factor at Manchester is very high.

B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. (Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Aviation what proportion of the capital expenditure programmes up to 1961–62 of British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways, respectively, will be met out of the internal resources of the corporations.

Mr. Rippon: Over the twelve years from 1947 to the end of 1959–60, the proportion of capital expenditure met from internal resources has been about 42 per cent. in the case of B.O.A.C. and 39 per cent. in the case of B.E.A.
I would not expect the inclusion of the years 1960–61 and 1961–62 to make much difference to these percentages.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever else is happening in other nationalised industries, we are trying to run these two Corporations as effective business corporations? [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are 'we'?"] The Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Therefore, is it not very desirable that in all future programmes they should be as self-financing as possible?

Mr. Rippon: It is true that the Corporations have financed and will continue to finance a substantial proportion of their investment programmes out of their own internal resources.

Airports (Landing Fees)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT, from information available to him through the International Civil Aviation Organisation, a list of the landing fees charged by the major air ports in the world, including London Airport.

Mr. Rippon: The charges, including landing fees, of the major airports are set out in the Manual of Airport and Air Navigation Facility Tariffs published by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It is obtainable from the Stationery Office, and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Hall: In that case, can my hon. Friend tell me whether London Airport is ranked among the highest-cost airports in the world? If so, will he conduct an inquiry into the reasons why it is such a high-cost airport?

Mr. Rippon: I cannot do anything about these things. As I believe my hon. Friend will understand when he sees the manual, these charges are very complex. It is not possible to make direct comparisons. Some airports charge on the service; some on weight; some have surcharges and some have differentials; some have varying charges for hangars, and some have levies on petrol and so on.

Supersonic Airliner

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation with which Commonwealth or European interests he is seeking co-operation for the development of a supersonic airliner.

Mr. Thorneycroft: My Ministry is in close touch with the Federal Aviation Agency in the United States, and I have also discussed this question in Paris. I do not rule out co-operation with other countries but, for practical reasons, this would no doubt have to be limited to countries which are able to make a substantial technical and financial contribution.

Mr. Strauss: Does the Minister rule out the possibility of some co-operation with France? On the general question, does he agree that the prospect of such development, either by ourselves or in co-operation with others, increases the possibility of the British aircraft industry once again leading the world in aircraft design and development?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I certainly do not rule out the possibility of co-operation with France. Indeed, I have had talks in Paris, as did my predecessor, about the development of a supersonic transport aircraft. I agree that it is a great

hope for the future, but it is something that needs planning very carefully before we embark upon it.

Victor Bomber

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Aviation what is the cost of the latest type of Victor Bomber.

Mr. Thorneycroft: About £1 million.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister taken steps to reduce this gigantic cost? How many of these £1 million aircraft is he ordering? Has he heard the rumour that this company may be taken over by an American company? What is his attitude to that?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The aircraft—they are very fine aircraft—are being produced as economically as possible. I am not able to state numbers, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Aero-engines

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Aviation what financial assistance has been given towards the development of aero-engines since 1950; and what has been received from royalties on the sale of aero-erigines.

Mr. Thorneycroft: During the period April, 1950, to March, 1960, payments by the Government to industry for research and development on aero-engines amounted to approximately £289 million. The great bulk of this expenditure was incurred in order to meet United Kingdom defence requirements. Payments to the Government in respect of sales of aero-engines to other customers during the same period amounted to approximately £17 million.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister give more information about a breakdown as between the civil and military grant?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, I am afraid I cannot break it down into military and civil payments.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Aviation what request he has received from Rolls Royce Limited for further financial assistance in development contracts for aero-engines.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Various requests. A financial contribution is being offered, subject to contract terms, for the development of the RB.163 engine.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the latest speech by Mr. Pearson, deputy chairman of Rolls Royce, asking for a 50–50 grant towards the development of civil engines in the future?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My attention was drawn to the Rolls Royce request for State aid, a request which it is by no means alone in making.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say what he is doing about it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We are negotiating the possibility of a subscription to the RB.163 engine.

London Airport

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking, pending the construction of the new passenger building, to improve the present facilities for handling passengers arriving at London Airport, North, particularly when two aircraft land at the same time.

Mr. Rippon: The Central Terminal will be used to relieve congestion.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is not a very informative answer. Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the "high utilisation factor", to which he referred just now, is extremely high in these huts on London Airport, North? Is he aware that trans-Atlantic passengers have a tedious and disagreeable time when aeroplanes arrive simultaneously? Is not this a very bad introduction for visitors to this country, and will not he provide something which is a little more informative than the Answer he has given?

Mr. Rippon: It is an informative Answer in the sense that it contains all the information. What happens is that when there are delayed or non-scheduled flights and certain charter flights, these are now diverted to the Central Terminal to relieve the congestion. We all know the problem and, as I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) last week, the first part of the long haul building will be completed in the late summer of 1961 and the remainder early in 1962.

Private Aviation Services

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Aviation how many persons have been

involved in accidents in connection with private commercial aviation services during the past two years; in how many instances passengers have been involved in serious inconvenience through failures in the service; and if he is now satisfied that official regulations of these services are being fully observed.

Mr. Thorneycroft: During the years 1958 and 1959, there were 65 accidents to aircraft on commercial flights of all kinds, excluding the Corporations. These accidents involved 99 fatalities, and 17 persons were seriously injured. I have no figures showing inconvenience to passengers. To reinforce the regulations applying to transport aviation services generally, an Order will be submitted shortly introducing Air Operators' Safety Certificates. Drafts of this Order are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Sorensen: How does this compare with B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and, in the case of grievances of passengers arising from failure of the service, has the right hon Gentleman any authority or jurisdiction?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We do our best to study the convenience of passengers, particularly from the point of view of the operation of airports. The comparable figures in the case of the Corporations are 17, 57 and 16.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the matter be referred to the Minister?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have never known anyone find any difficulty in referring matters of inconvenience to a Minister.

Aviation Spirit

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Aviation what recent representations have been made to him in respect of the alleged defectiveness of certain types of aviation spirit; what has been the result of his investigations in this matter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent paraffin is used as the motive power in British-owned aircraft.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have received no representations about this matter. All British operators of turbine engined aircraft normally use paraffin, except in


rare cases where this fuel is not available. My Department has throughout acted on the advice of the Air Registration Board.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister give an assurance that this spirit is not used by foreign aircraft landing in this country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I can only answer for aircraft registered here, and my Answer goes for them.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister recognise the greater safety of paraffin over petrol as a fuel? While he appreciates that British companies for the most part do use paraffin, would not he try to encourage those operating companies who use British airfields to follow the example of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As I say, I am aware of the point raised by the hon. Member and the arguments on his side. We have acted throughout on the advice of the Air Registration Board, which I think is right in a matter of this kind.

Princess Flying Boats

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what he proposes to do with the Princess flying boats.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I propose to offer them for sale on the open market.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is suggested that a company has been formed to purchase these three aircraft provided that it can purchase the right to routes along with the aircraft? Is that the case, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman refuse to entertain such an offer, because the provision is the business of the Air Transport Licensing Board?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I should think there would be some difficulty with a composite contract of that character. I should like to study it before making a reply.

Mr. J. Howard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these flying boats have been lying in Southampton Water for a considerable time and that proposals have been, I understand, put forward for operating them on a route? Can my right hon. Friend say whether these negotiations are still alive?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question refers only to the matter of their disposal and not to the routes, which is quite a separate matter. I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. If there is some matter regarding a particular route, I should like to see a Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of the United States of America on the question of Atlantic Union and the eventual merging of Great Britain with the United States of America.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir. But I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) on 1st December.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I saw that Answer to his hon. and gallant Friend which was no doubt in reply to a sponsored Question put down for a written reply after this oral Question. Has the attention of the Home Secretary been drawn to the excellent article in the Evening Standard, on Tuesday, 22nd November, page 7, in which his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) said that the Prime Minister did make these definite proposals to a group of American journalists? Can he answer that question, because in his reply the Prime Minister denied that allegation?

Mr. Butler: As the Prime Minister said in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke):
Of course, I made no such statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 81.]
In regard to the lively article by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton), I think that we must leave the question of what he describes to his own imagination.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Of the two defence policies of the party opposite,


would not one, if carried out, be likely to merge us with the United States of America, and the other, if carried out, merge us with the U.S.S.R.?

Mr. Butler: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Motor Vehicles (Personal Cases)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Health (1) why he has refused to supply a motor vehicle to Mr. R. Hillier, 44 Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions, Fulham, S.W.6, who lost a leg and suffered other injuries in the last war; and
(2) why he has refused to assist Mr. V. Mexson, 12 St. Maur Road, Fulham, S.W.6, a sufferer from poliomyelitis, in the conversion of the controls of his car for hand operation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): Motor vehicles or assistance towards conversion costs are provided only for those whose ability to walk is much more severely limited than that of Mr. Hillier or Mr. Mexson.

Mr. Stewart: Does the hon. Lady realise that a man's ability to walk about a medical examination room is one thing, but that his ability to get about in crowded streets and to catch buses and trains is quite another? Does she realise that Mr. Hillier lost one leg and was seriously wounded in the other and that Mr. Mexson, his doctor says, has a leg weakness by which he finds long waits in overcrowded trains and buses too much for his endurance? Is she aware that Mr. Mexson recently had a narrow escape from falling off a platform on to a railway line? Will she look into these two cases again?

Miss Pitt: I realise that it is difficult for disabled people to use public transport, but both the hon. Member's constituents have been medically examined by my Department during the current year and their mobility is such that they do not qualify for invalid transport.

Mr. Stewart: Does that not suggest that the standards set by the Ministry are unreasonable and that the whole question should be looked into again?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. If I remember rightly, I think that more than 12,000 such vehicles are on issue.

Staff (Pay Award)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Health to how many staff, and for what period the award of £6,423,500, referred to on page 6 of the Supplementary Estimate for the National Health Service of 14th November, 1960, will be paid.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): About 282,000, under thirty awards operative from various dates.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the 280,000 are, as I imagine, administrative and clerical staff of hospitals? If so, do these awards follow automatically on the Pilkington award?

Mr. Powell: There is quite an appreciable amount of administrative staff involved. The awards are not connected with the Pilkington recommendatons.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider providing free of charge repairs and replacements for hearing aids purchased privately.

Miss Pitt: No, Sir.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that many old-age pensioners have purchased their own hearing aids? Most of them have done this out of a sense of loyalty, rather to help the Health Service than to hit it or to add to the expenditure, as we have seen in the National Health Service Report. Will the hon. Lady speak to her right hon. Friend to see whether it is possible to help these people, particularly old-age pensioners who have purchased sets, with replacements or repairs which are required?

Miss Pitt: The hon. Member will appreciate that it would be virtually impossible for us to stock all the components necessary to provide for replacements or to repair hearing aids purchased privately.

Mr. Spriggs: In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Nursing Homes

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the concern expressed about the deteriorating standards in many nursing homes for elderly people where charges range from 7 to 30 guineas a week, if he will set up a commitee to look into the matter; and if he will consider the need for legislation requiring these homes to register annually, and prescribing precise standards of furnishings and staffing.

Mr. Powell: A person carrying on any nursing home is required by law to be registered by the local authority and registration may be refused or cancelled. The premises are subject to inspection by the authority's officers. I am at present considering suggestions for strengthening the powers of the registration authorities.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that Dr. Fielding, medical officer of health, Bournemouth—where it is claimed there are more old people than in most towns—has complained bitterly about the deteriorating standards of nursing homes and asked for reforms which would necessitate legislation? Will the Minister look at that report from Dr. Fielding?

Mr. Powell: Yes, I will.

Dr. Summerskill: Am I right in saying that a person can keep two old people without having to register a place as a nursing home and that, in view of high rates and difficulty of housing these old people, there are opportunities for the most unpleasant sharks to exploit them? Will the Minister give attention to this question other than the question about nursing homes?

Mr. Powell: This is a Question about nursing homes and there is an obligation to register them.

Drugs (Cost)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to reduce the cost of drugs supplied within the National Health Service.

Mr. Powell: I shall continue by all practicable means to encourage, through

the co-operation of the medical profession, economy in prescribing in the Hospital and General Medical Services. As regards drug prices, negotiations on renewal of the voluntary price regulation scheme are in progress.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that any steps he can take to bring down drug prices, provided (1) they do not result in any reduction of service to the patient and (2) that any savings made are not used for the benefit of private patients, will have the enthusiastic support of this side of the House?

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend taking any stops to see that new entrants to the medical profession are aware of the economics of the Health Service and aware of the fact that if they inflate the cost of drugs by unnecessarily prescribing the more expensive drugs they will defeat the whole aim of the Service?

Mr. Powell: Yes. That point was made by the Hinchliffe Committee, and I understand that in teaching establishments attention is given to it.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hospitals are buying their drugs on the Continent, drugs of exactly similar quality and content, but at a very much lower rate than they would have to pay for drugs imported from America or manufactured in this country?

Mr. Powell: So I read, but perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question on that if he wants particulars about it.

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to curtail the expensive methods adopted by the sales departments of certain drug houses engaged in the provision of drugs for the National Health Service.

Mr. Powell: The industry has adopted a code of practice designed to eliminate improper forms of sales promotion. I shall continue to bring any breaches to their attention for action.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 70 per cent. of the cost of some American drugs in this country can be related to advertising purposes? Is he aware that I have


brought this matter to the attention of his five predecessors time after time and that the country is paying £70 million for drugs and that a great part of that amount can be related to undue advertising? Will he take some trouble to investigate the whole matter? There is no question about it and his hon. Friends agree with me about this. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors should not have taken action.

Mr. Powell: I am anxious to find any means I can of reducing drug costs and drug prices, but the right hon. Lady exaggerates the rôle of advertising costs in the total bill.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered abolishing the three-year moratorium on price control?

Mr. Powell: That is part of the voluntary price regulation scheme which is at present under review.

Pneumoconiosis

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the present procedure for the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. The facilities in the National Health Service for diagnosing pneumoconiosis are adequate and I am advised that the medical procedures are well understood.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that they find all those who have it, and with sufficient speed?

Mr. Powell: I have no reason to doubt that, but if the right hon. Gentleman has any information tending to the contrary effect, I shall be very glad to examine it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The definition of pneumoconiosis on which present cases are decided was reached a quarter of a century ago, after an investigation by the Medical Research Council. Has not the time now arrived when, in view of our much wider experience, there should be another investigation by the Council?

Mr. Powell: I think that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had a number of cases in my constituency in which patients have been diagnosed as not having pneumoconiosis but who, when they have died, have been shown by autopsy to have been suffering from it? If I send the right hon. Gentleman details, will he look at the problem?

Mr. Powell: Certainly.

Mr. G. Brown: The Minister said only that he thought that this was a matter for his right hon. Friend. Will he at least say that he will discuss the matter with that right hon. Gentleman to see what can be done done about it?

Mr. Powell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend's attention will be drawn to the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Dr. Summerskill: Can I add to what my right hon. Friend has said?

Mr. Speaker: I called the next Question before I saw the right hon. Lady was rising.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Administrators

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in establishing the selective recruitment and training scheme for hospital administrators; what proposals he has for extending the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: The scheme provides at present for the recruitment of sixteen persons a year for three years theoretical and practical training. If there are enough suitable candidates, the figure will be increased to twenty-four for 1961. I shall shortly be discussing the experimental introduction of a regional scheme With representatives of hospital authorities.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that I am very glad to know that this scheme is being extended, although the extension appears to be fairly modest? Is he aware that sixteen is not nearly enough to make good the natural wastage of senior administrative staff in the


Health Service? Will he see that this scheme has enthusiastic support from his Department?

Mr. Powell: At present the limitation, as I said, is availability of candidates, but I am most grateful to the two bodies which are doing this work, and they have my enthusiastic support.

Sir G. Nicholson: When my right hon. Friend says that the limitation is availability of candidates, does he mean the deduction to be drawn that the right type of person is not going into hospital administrative work? Will he agree that unless the best type of administrator is attracted it will be disastrous?

Mr. Powell: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said, but this scheme is in its very early stages and the flow of suitable candidates is bound to increase only gradually.

Newcastle

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Health if he will give the reasons for the continued increase in the numbers of people waiting for admission to hospitals in the Newcastle region.

Mr. Powell: A special inquiry into these waiting lists and their significance is to be made on behalf of the regional hospital board and the board of governors.

Mr. Grey: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I remind him of the alarm and concern there is about these waiting lists in the Northern Region, that in two years they have increased by 4,770 and the number of people waiting for hospital beds over twelve months has gone up by 1,421? There is disquiet about these figures. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will set up an inquiry, but does he believe that the underspending of the capital allocation is responsible for this position? Could he not use private beds to get over the temporary difficulty in relieving waiting lists?

Mr. Powell: As to the second part of the question, private beds are always available whenever there is an emergency medical need for their use. On the general point, until the significance of these waiting lists is analysed it is quite

impossible to say what is the best way in which they can be soonest reduced.

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Health how many hospitals in the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board's area are below their establishment of doctors and nurses; and how this figure compares with the rest of the country.

Mr. Powell: Seven and seventeen, respectively, out of 179. I regret that I have not been able to get the answer to the second part of the Question in the time available.

Mr. Slater: Will the Minister consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those hospitals which are below establishment? What assistance is his Ministry giving to hospitals to help them to reach their establishments?

Mr. Powell: The right procedure would be for the hon. Gentleman to ask for the names and then I can publish a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (CONGO)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal what reasons were given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his request to Her Majesty's Government to postpone the arrangements made for training Congolese cadets in the United Kingdom.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): The Secretary-General of the United Nations informed us on 30th September that, in his view, it would not be appropriate in the circumstances which prevailed at that time to put this scheme into operation. Her Majesty's Government deferred to his view in this matter.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why did Her Majesty's Government defer to the view of the Secretary-General of the United Nations in this matter? Is there any reason at all why under-developed countries, such as the Congo, should not seek training facilities in a country such as Great Britain, Which is able to provide them?

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government deferred to the Secretary-General's view because they considered that to be in the interests of both the Congo and the United Nations at the present time.

Sir R. Grimston: Will my right hon. Friend not consider that time sometimes elapses? Will he consider advising the Secretary-General that it does not make much sense to castigate this young army for indiscipline and at the same time put obstacles in the way of its receiving proper training?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. We have made it plain that circumstances often change and, as soon as it becomes appropriate, we are quite willing to undertake this task.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal how he proposes to inform the House and the country of the United Nations activities in the former Belgian Congo; and what inquiries and representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government about acts of violence committed or countenanced by United Nations troops.

Mr. Heath: Reports issued by the United Nations on the Congo are placed in the Library of the House. Our delegation in New York is in constant communication with the United Nations authorities there about all activities in the Congo.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has my right hon. Friend studied the information provided by Captain John Roberts and other informed observers about atrocities committed on Baluba tribesmen and others by United Nations forces? Is it not very bad for the reputation of the United Nations that no protest should be made about these things and that opinion should appear to exist that, if something is done under the auspices of the United Nations, it does not matter if it is done without morality, decency, or military honour?

Mr. Heath: I cannot comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, nor can I give details of confidential discussions which take place between delegations and the Secretary-General, but naturally all these matters are constantly under discussion.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least explain to his hon. Friend that if we are to set ourselves up in the House of Commons to pass judgment in these extravagant terms on United Nations actions, we shall never

move any nearer to a world authority; indeed, we shall move away from it?

Mr. Heath: It is very difficult to comment on individual incidents in the Congo at the moment because of the confusion there and the difficulties of obtaining all the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL EUROPE (CONTROL OF ARMS)

Mr. Healey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council Meeting in December should discuss the control of arms and forces in Central Europe.

Mr. Heath: The provisions for controlling arms and forces in an agreed zone in Europe, which were contained in the Western Peace Plan put forward at the Geneva Conference in May last year, were accepted by the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at the time. These proposals still stand, and no useful purpose would be served by raising the subject in the Council now.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman refers were strictly contingent on the settlement of quite unconnected political questions, and as proposals have been made publicly by the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, for substantial unilateral action by the West in changing the whole pattern of armaments in Europe, would it not be highly desirable at this N.A.T.O. Council meeting to suggest investigating with the Soviet Union some means of limiting and reducing armaments in Central Europe, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, as at one time proposed by the British Prime Minister and recently supported by The Times?

Mr. Heath: I think that where we differ is in the hon. Gentleman's thinking that political circumstances in Europe are entirely disconnected from these specific proposals. Her Majesty's Government do not take that view. However, there is a very long agenda for this meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council and no doubt we shall have an opportunity of saying more about it in the debate which is to come.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nobody on this side of the House thinks that there is no connection between political and disarmament questions? Is he saying that there is no point whatever in trying to freeze and reduce armaments in Central Europe unless there can be proper agreement on the reunification of Germany and major changes of that nature in the political picture?

Mr. Heath: I am not saying that. What I am saying is that our proposals are quite clear and they stand at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish a White Paper showing the main differences between the disarmament proposals of Her Majesty's Government and of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics both of which are directed towards rapid disarmament coupled with inspection and control.

Mr. Heath: No. Sir. The hon. and learned Gentleman will find all the relevant proposals for disarmament in Command Paper 1152 and the differences between them were carefully analysed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate on 26th July.

Mr. Mallalieu: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that both sides in the disarmament conference professed to want complete disarmament and both also claimed to be prepared to submit to supervision? Would it not, therefore, be to the advantage, of world public opinion at any rate, if the respects in which the Russians' claim is unfounded, according to Her Majesty's Government, were set out?

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government are most anxious that the differences between the two plans should be clearly understood and they are already set out in a White Paper and were carefully explained by my right hon. Friend in his speech, which was fully reported. So all the information is available.

Mr. Mallalieu: Would the Lord Privy Seal agree that the form in which they are presented to the world is by no

means clear and that it would be to the greatest advantage to have these points cleared up in public?

Mr. Heath: I quite agree, but I do not think that if is necessary to have a new White Paper to do that.

FLOODS (RELIEF MEASURES)

Mr. M. Stewart: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the worsening flood situation during the weekend, he will make a statement of the immediate action that the Government intend to take.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs has today been visiting flooded areas in Wales and will report to me. One of my engineering inspectors has gone to the flooded areas of the Severn and the Wye to examine the situation there at first hand and to meet the local authorities. Locally based engineering inspectors of the Ministry of Agriculture are also available in each area to give help.
The undertaking I gave last month that the Government will offer financial assistance where necessary applies equally to all new areas where torrential rain has brought flooding.
I said then that, where it became clear that an unreasonable burden would fall on the rates as a result of the floods unless a local authority were given special assistance, the Government would consider requests for special financial aid. Where local appeal funds did not meet the needs of those who suffered distress, the Government would supplement them.
Those undertakings apply to all flooded areas in England and Wales, and local authorities can accordingly go forward without fear on the essential work of flood relief. Those who are organising local appeals can proceed in the firm knowledge that the Government will supplement their efforts if need be.
The emergency services are all working well, and any local authority which needs advice or assistance can get in touch with my Ministry by telephone


instantly. Everything that can be done to help is being done.

Mr. Stewart: But could not the right hon. Gentleman go a little further than that? While I do not in any way wish to minimise the extent to which Wales has suffered over the weekend, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the striking features of the events of the weekend has been the very large number of counties in all parts of the kingdom that have suffered; and that we are faced with something that now appears to be occurring on a greater scale than we have been used to in previous years?
Can the Minister tell us anything fur-their about his consideration of proposals to set up a national fund to deal with disasters of this kind? Would he not agree that the problem of flooding is closely linked with that of water conservation? Does he remember that the Parliamentary Secretary told us on 11th November that those two questions were being studied by a Committee which hoped to report early next summer? Ought not the Minister to try to get the report, and some action on it, earlier than that?

Mr. Brooke: The flooding was extensive during the weekend. It was much more severe in certain areas than in others. In fact, this has been the wettest autumn that the country has experienced in this century, and until the scientists learn how to control rainfall, no nation can guarantee that torrential rain will not cause flooding.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could do anything to speed up the Report of the sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee concerned with conservation. I am quite certain that that sub-committee is working as fast as it can, and I am hoping to receive its report within the next few months, when it will certainly receive immediate consideration by the Government.
On the question of a national disaster fund, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on that the other day.

Mr. G. Brown: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a national problem and requires dealing with in a

countrywide way? As to its being the wettest autumn for a long time, is he not aware that this weekend in my own division, where I was, we could have dealt with the wettest autumn for very many years if the brooks, ditches and river courses had been dealt with by the authorities whose job it is to deal with them; and that this has been explained so very often on the ground of lack of a national policy? Will the Minister go into this rather urgently?
Will he also arrange with local authorities that those people whose houses have been made a shambles this weekend will, without question, be able to have fuel and disinfectant so that they can deal with their own personal problems without the question of cost immediately arising?

Mr. Brooke: I have no doubt that the local authorities, the National Assistance Board and all other agencies acting locally will do everything in their power to help those people, who, I think, deserve the sympathy of every one of us.
As to this being a national problem, I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a Bill before a Standing Committee at this very moment which makes fresh provision for many of these watercourses, some of which have not been under the control of any authority until now.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Speaking as the Member for one of the worst-hit areas in the country, may I impress on my right hon. Friend the importance of giving adequate warning to people if flooding is likely to occur? Is he aware that since the last disaster at Exeter we have introduced such a warning system, and that on this occasion it was possible to give quite considerable notice that this danger was likely to occur?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir, I have heard of the steps that have been successfully taken at Exeter. I think that we owe a great deal to our experience with Civil Defence that early warnings have been given almost everywhere. Fortunately, that is the one good aspect of the whole disaster—loss of life has been extraordinarily small.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Minister aware that our immediate problem, at any rate in the country districts and in the flooded


towns, is to get the water pumped from people's houses? Is he aware that in many boroughs there is a great shortage of pumping machinery? Barnstaple could manage with another half-dozen machines as a matter of urgency. Could he consult his officers throughout the country to see whether there are machines available in areas that are not flooded, and have them shipped to areas that have been flooded?
Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have received the very valuable support of the people in the fire services but that, apparently, a directive has gone out—at any rate, in Exeter—telling them that they are not to help in pumping out flooded buildings? Will he find out whether that is true and, if it is true, will he reverse the decision?

Mr. Brooke: I have no knowledge of any decision about the fire service in Exeter or Devon. What I have said, and I am very glad to have the opportunity to repeat it, is that any local authority which requires assistance, or is short of equipment or anything it needs, and has difficulty in solving its own problem locally, should get on the telephone instantly to my Department, when we will do everything we can to help.

Mr. de Freitas: Does the Minister realise that the Bill to which he referred as being in a Standing Committee does nothing whatsoever to associate water conservation with flood control? Will he bear in mind that there is on the Order Paper a Motion, signed by nearly 100 hon. Members, asking the Government to take notice of the two together as a national problem?
[That this House, sympathising with those who have suffered in the recent floods and believing that much of this flooding can be prevented from happening again, that many drainage schemes are inadequate, that the method of levying the drainage rate is unjust and that the need for water conservation is not fully appreciated, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to co-ordinate flood prevention, drainage and water conservation and to permit the construction and maintenance of the necessary works and reservoirs at the expense of the country as a whole.]

Mr. Brooke: The Government were thinking about this before the House of Commons was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was I who took the initiative in asking my Central Advisory Water Committee to go into the matter, and to report to me.

Later—

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I call your attention to the fact—I think that this is a matter of order—that although the statement made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government referred very specifically to floods in Wales, a Welsh Member has not been able to ask a question?

Mr. Speaker: It is a point of order. I urgently say that, if we were to have supplementary questions from every hon. Member whose constituency is affected by floods, I think that even the House would become weary of the number of supplementary questions.

Mr. Callaghan: But would you allow me to point out to you, Sir, that, from the point of view of South Wales, none of the references of the Minister is really in issue here? In fact, the cause is very well known, namely, a very high tide meeting the water coming down from the valleys. May we not ask the Minister what steps are being taken, through the medium of his Bill, to prevent this sort of occurrence resulting in disaster?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but it is absolutely essential that there should be some limit to supplementary questions. It is really no good for the House, on the one hand, to blame me because we do not get through enough Questions and, on the other, to complain when some kind of austerity is imposed in order that we may attain that end.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not this in rather a different category? By ancient custom, the House always listens when any matter of distress affects a Member's constituency. We know full well that Questions are put about mining disasters, about accidents, about acts of God, and recently Mr. Speaker Morrison even allowed a Private Notice Question because there had been a near-miss between two aircraft.
With great respect, Sir, I would suggest that, when an hon. Member's constituency has been affected, it is within the


usual custom for him to be allowed to ask a question about it.

Mr. Speaker: I have not the slightest idea how many hon. Members' sonstituencies were not affected by the floods this weekend. In fact, the floods are so general that I really would not know from what I have read. I do not, of course, desire to bring these matters to an end sooner than they should be, but if one on each occasion allows questions from a large number of hon. Members rising then we really shall never get on to other matters after Question Time That is the difficulty.

Mr. Callaghan: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to point out that there were, in fact, only three hon. Members rising? In fact, we were past the hour for the end of Oral Questions so that no one was prevented from asking his Question. The only business before the House now, so far as I can see, is the Betting Levy Bill. Is that really supposed to be a matter for comparison with the distress which has been caused to thousands of people during the last day or two?

Mr. Speaker: The worth of the business which the House appoints to consider on any given day is not for me; that is for the House.

Mr. M. Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I understood what you said aright, you felt that you were not able to call all hon. Members whose constituencies were affected by floods because there were so many and the floods were go general. Does that not underline the national nature of the problem and the desirability of the Government finding time to debate the Motion on the Order Paper to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) referred?

Mr. Speaker: That cannot be a point of order.

CLOSURE OF NEWSPAPERS (RESOLUTION)

Mr. Gaitskell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is the Government's intention to take account of the Resolu-

tion passed by the House on Friday, without a Division, and to institute an inquiry into the Press?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have not had notice of this question, and I should like to have an opportunity of giving it the attention it deserves. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me an opportunity of consulting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and giving him an answer in due course.

Mr. K. Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the Home Secretary's reply to my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: There is some difficulty about this. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition rose to a point of order. It was not strictly a point of order. It might have been a Private Notice Question, but the rules about Private Notice Questions have not been complied with. I do not think that we can go on with it.

Mr. Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Resolution in question arises out of a Motion that I moved on Friday I should like to ask the Leader of the House a question directly related to Government statements on the subject.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not do that now because it does not resemble a point of order, to which he rose, and the rest of it would be irregular.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Government were defeated in the House on Friday, is not that a matter which should receive the attention of the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: All sorts of things can happen within the rules of order, but nothing that has been happening so far has been within the rules.

QUESTION TIME

Mr. Speaker: I should like to say a word to the House about Questions. I have given careful consideration to the problems which were raised on Thursday last by the right hon. Member for


Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and others with regard to the timing of the Prime Minister's Questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There are various possible solutions, but I must tell the House that strong representations have been made by hon. Members individually, from both sides of the House, and by the usual channels, that it really would be a pity if the House could not find a solution to this problem from its own resources.
It seems to be generally agreed that the run of Questions has become much more slow than past experience shows to be necessary. I myself have done my best—I confess that my efforts have been singularly unsuccessful—to keep Question Time moving. I can do no more without fuller co-operation from the House. I am told that the Prime Minister is prepared to make some change if that be the general wish of the House. I feel, however—and I am supported in this by the representations which have been made—that if the House were to make a real effort we could, even in the comparatively few days which remain before Christmas, make any change in respect of the Prime Minister's Questions unnecessary. I believe that the House would think this the much happier solution if it could be done.
I propose to try to revert to what was the fully accepted practice previously, and I shall be compelled generally to allow fewer supplementary questions than hitherto. Success will require some self-restraint in comparison with our habits of late, and for this I must ask the help of all hon. Members, for it would be tedious for the House if the Chair were constantly to have to remind hon. Members of what we all know, namely, that the sole purpose of the supplementary question should be to elucidate the Answer given.
Let us see how we get on. I hope that by Christmas we shall feel that, between us, we have brought Question Time back into a form like that in which we need to have it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): We are all very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for the statement that you have made. As you have said, the Prime

Minister is prepared to make some change if that be the general wish of the House. In the light of your statement, Sir, I am sure that the best procedure would be to see what change we can make ourselves before Christmas and review the matter then having regard to the success we make in that advanced and accelerated procedure. I do not underestimate the desires of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to see the Prime Minister's Questions reached, and neither does my right hon. Friend, but I think that the most sensible way would be to make the experiment you suggest.

Mr. Gaitskell: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your statement, but may I ask you to bear in mind certain considerations? First, it has never been made clear what is the objection to the Prime Minister answering Questions at a particular point of time, at 3.15, as was suggested by the Select Committee. This is really no: a concession on his part. It is something which was recommended by the Select Committee, and it seems to many of us to be a very sensible idea.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, will you bear in mind, that, although no doubt supplementary questions are sometimes too long, so are supplementary answers to those questions and, further, supplementary questions are a truly essential part of the tradition of the House, sometimes eliciting important admissions from the Government. It could be very unfortunate for the reputation of Question Time, if I may say so, Sir, if you were to be too severe on supplementary questions on important issues.
I hope that you will bear those matters in mind, Mr. Speaker. If your suggestion is, as I understand it to be, that we should leave this matter until Christmas, I think that I should be bound to accept that proposal, on the understanding, however, that, if the Prime Minister's Questions are not reached at a reasonably early date within the next fortnight, we shall certainly wish to return to the matter after the Recess.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, the totality of Questions got through would not be touched by the timing of the Prime Minister's Questions at 3.15. I wanted to bear both things in mind. The


austerity the Chair might feel obliged to impose on supplementary questions would very much depend upon the length and character of the supplementary questions. I shall try to obtain the kind of position that the House desires.

Mr. Shinwell: May I reinforce the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Would it not be far better, and to the advantage of the Prime Minister himself, if, instead of coming to the House, as he does on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and having to wait to see whether his Questions are to be asked—and, frequently, having waited, have to go away without answering his Questions, thus wasting time that he might use to greater advantage—he knew that at 3.15 p.m. his Questions would then be put by the hon. Members asking them? Surely that is a point for the Prime Minister himself to consider.
Secondly, may I also reinforce what my right hon. Friend said about the advantages of supplementary questions? Frequently, an important Question is put by an hon. Member who regards the Answer as unsatisfactory, and time is taken up either by points of order or by the hon. Member announcing that he will seek to raise the Question again on the Motion for the Adjournment. Surely it is far better that supplementary questions should be asked, within, of course, the discretion of the Chair. Primarily, it is for the Prime Minister himself to decide, if the House so desires it, that he should come here at a specified time to answer Questions?

Sir G. Nicholson: I want to put something to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that has not been considered before in this discussion. It is that this is really an innovation, which, I think, was introduced when Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown was in the Chair, of calling the names of hon. Members for asking supplementary questions. Before the war, the practice was that a Minister would answer a Question, and, automatically, the hon. Member who asked the Question was granted by the House leave to ask a supplementary, and, thereafter, there was more or less a free-for-all. Hon. Members used to get up and the hon. Member with the loudest voice, or in the most prominent part of the House, won. Sometimes, that worked very well, but if it

was not working, Mr. Speaker automatically called the next Question.
The result of Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown's innovation has certainly been to give Question Time a greater dignity, but it has also entrenched the supplementary question and given it a sort of right to exist that it never had before. I suggest that this is worth while considering. I do not mean the first supplementary, but that the second, third and fourth seem to have a right to exist. I suggest that it might be worth considering going back to the prewar practice.

Mr. C. Pannell: Some of us do not understand the difficulty which the Leader of the House seams to have about the Prime Minister answering Questions at 3.15 p.m. Before the Select Committee on Procedure was set up, we had tedious repetition from the Leader of the House saying that everything had to wait until the Select Committee on Procedure had reported. We duly reported, and the Government have adopted only the rather trivial degrees of odds and sundries from its Report.
As a matter of fact, what happened then is worth considering. The recommendation in favour of 3.15 p.m. was the unanimous decision of the Select Committee, on which it spent a great deal of time. The Committee considered it with a great deal of trouble, and we understood that tentative inquiries had been made as to whether this was acceptable to the authorities concerned. We understood that it was. Why put all the House about, when we could have this automatically settled by the Prime Minister replying at 3.15 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, although it should be understood that if a Question were put on any other day some other Minister would reply for him? We cannot see the difficulty about this tidy suggestion for the general convenience.

Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to get involved in a long discussion. All I am asking at the moment is that the House should try this experiment. If it does not work, we shall all know where we are by Christmas. If it does work, it will help with the totality of Questions and not only with this matter of the Prime Minister's Questions.

Mr. Mitchison: May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider both sides


of the matter? There is the possibility that too much austerity in supplementary questions would lead the Government to practise evasive replies.

Mr. Speaker: We might fall into all kinds of perils. I do not undertake to be as austere, as, for instance, I have been today. But I must see what the House is capable of.

Mr. Mellish: May I reinforce the points which have been made about the length of Answers from the Government Front Bench? Not only are they mostly unsatisfactory, but also very long? May I ask you, Sir, in giving your consideration to this, to take this into account—that they should be shorter? Secondly, on the question about calling Members for supplementaries, perhaps we could now forget the old-fashioned idea that Privy Councillors ought to have preference?

Mr. Speaker: When I ask for the assistance of the House I include Ministers.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Since, by implication, criticism has been made of Privy Councillors, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will apply the same principle to right hon. Members on the Front Bench here as you do to Privy Councillors and other hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I shall try to operate what I think is best in the interests of the House as a whole.

Mr. Rankin: You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that to a small extent I was concerned in what happened on Thursday, and that you made a rather unusual Ruling, in my view, in that you refused

me a supplementary question on the grounds that it contained too much argument. You promised on Thursday that you would look again at your Ruling. While I am not pressing you now, I am asking if you still remember your promise.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman presses me. I examined with some care what he said and I have not seen anything in any way to decry my decision that his question was out of order.

Mr. Rankin: May I press my point upon you, Mr. Speaker, because it is a very important one? Of course, if there is a tightening of the conditions under which supplementary questions may be put the whole House—perhaps hon. Members on both sides—will be very seriously concerned with the results of that Ruling. I do not want to go back on my supplementary question, but, with respect, I suggest that it did not contain too much argument, although, as I said, it is very difficult—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I have already ruled, once, in effect, twice, on the hon. Gentleman's question. I have not the slightest doubt that it was out of order for more than one reason. I do not propose to argue about it, but if the hon. Gentleman wants guidance about what the rules are he will find stated on pages 357 and 358 of Erskine May the applicable rules to Questions originally tabled, which would govern the matter of his question, and on page 363 their application to supplementary questions, for which the rules are the same.

Orders of the Day — BETTING LEVY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary, I wish to say that I propose to call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), and I would add that a reasoned Amendment presents the Chair with some difficulty as regards keeping the debate in order, when, as in the present case, the Amendment is declaratory of a principle differing from that in the Bill.
For instance, in this case, the discussion of the conditions under which betting on greyhound racing is carried on would be in order only in so far as it is an argument for giving or not giving the Bill a Second Reading.

4.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill gives us an opportunity to complete some hitherto unfinished business. This was envisaged at the time of the passage of the Betting and Gaming Bill through Parliament, and I have always thought that the scheme for the control of bookmakers which passed into law this summer would not be complete without proposals for a levy. The House will be aware, however, that this question wants examination and is not without difficulty. That is why I appointed in November last year a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Leslie Peppiatt to consider two things. The first was whether a levy was desirable and the second was, if so, whether a practicable scheme could be drawn up.
The Committee reported with commendable speed in April to the effect that a levy was desirable and that machinery—the framework of which it suggested—could be devised. The House will remember that the recommendation that a levy was desirable is included in paragraph 19 of the Peppiatt Report, in which the Committee said:
… there is an almost unanimous opinion, on all sides of the racing industry (including the bookmakers)"—

I underline that—
that a levy is required.
The Report goes on to say:
The United Kingdom has for a long time been in the lead in horse racing, and we think the infusion of fresh money should be regarded not as serving to bolster a declining industry but as an aid to improving it. Weighing the evidence as a whole, we consider that a levy is desirable.
So much for the desirability.
An opportunity was given to the House in May last to debate the Report, and I think that I am right in saying that the recommendations of the Report were generally welcomed by the House. In the further consultations and considerations that we have had, I have also found general support for a levy on bookmakers among the various racing interests, including the bookmakers themselves.
The object of the Government in promoting the Bill is to enable an industry to help itself. As is pointed out in the Peppiatt Report,
… the problem and its solution are domestic to the sport of horse racing.
I understand that an Amendment is to be moved in relation to the possibility of a levy for the benefit of greyhound racing. I will leave my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who is to wind up the debate, to answer the point of view of hon. Members who are to put that case. I will confine myself to one or two remarks at this stage, in view of the words of the Peppiatt Committee that
… the problem and its solution are domestic to the sport of horse racing.
I understand that the idea of those who are interested in extending this to greyhound racing is that what is good for one is good for the other and that the two sports are similar and should have similar treatment. I am sorry, but I cannot accept this argument. I do not believe that people feel that the needs of the two sports are equally pressing. Moreover, what I am saying is complimentary to greyhound racing. The amenities of greyhound racing tracks are, on the whole, adequate and the large tracks excellent. It is more difficult to make a case that greyhound owners are in economic difficulties when it is a fact that their numbers are increasing. However, as I have said, we shall listen to the arguments put forward.
Lastly, from this particular aspect of the matter and to show the importance which we attach to it, the Peppiatt Committee was fortunate, as the members of it pointed out, in finding complete unanimity of opinion in the horse racing industry in favour of a levy. I purposely underlined the words in the Report about bookmakers being in favour of it. In the horse racing industry, not only the beneficiaries but also representative bookmakers favour the imposition of a levy. I have no evidence of similar agreement in the greyhounnd racing industry.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman will be able to state his case later, which will be listened to and answered by the Government. We wish to hear it most clearly put forward.
The general consideration which we have in mind is that it is one thing for the Government and Parliament to provide machinery to give effect to an agreed scheme for the horse racing industry and a very different thing to impose a scheme for the benefit of greyhound racing, which has not been the subject of examination or negotiation. I should be interested to hear the arguments of those who favour the extension of the levy in this way.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman said that, as far as he knows, bookmakers favour such a levy. With great respect, I have been unable to find any bookmaker who is looking forward to being levied.

Mr. Butler: I do not think that anyone is anxious to have a levy imposed upon him, but the representatives of the bookmakers on the Peppiatt Committee and bookmakers as a whole have stated that they think they have a part to play, and, while, humanly, many of them may not like the idea, I think that they realise where their duty lies.
I should like to stress that the Bill is not designed to assist any sectional interest in horse racing. The justification for it is the need to provide the machinery by which a great national sport and a national industry can be prevented from

getting into trouble or declining. If, as a result of the Bill, public support for horse racing can be maintained and increased, that purpose will be further advanced by the Bill. In my view, it is in the national interest that our prestige and, indeed, our pre-eminence in the breeding and racing of bloodstock should be maintained. I believe that this Bill will help to maintain it.
It is contemplated that, once the various boards and tribunals are set up, they will be, as far as possible, autonomous. This is why I think that the Bill is well drafted and well conceived, because the Government intervention will be kept to a minimum. The Home Secretary will have same limited functions—that is, approving schemes for the distribution of the proceeds of the levy, appointing certain members of the boards and tribunals and approving remuneration and allowances. But, in general, the Government feel that they will have fulfilled their responsibilities if they provide the horse racing industry with the necessary machinery to operate the scheme. So much for the general reasons behind the Bill and the attitude of the Government in not intervening too much in its operation.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 sets up a Horserace Betting Levy Board. In the Peppiatt Report this was called the "Central Board." It is being set up with responsibilities for collecting a levy from bookmakers and from the Totalisator Board. Therefore, the Bill not only operates in relation to the new levy, but assumes the general responsibilities for collecting a levy from the Totalisator Board and also applying the proceeds for certain specified purposes set out in Clause I connected with the advancement of horse racing. These purposes, which, as I say, are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1 (1), are the same as those now assisted by the Racecourse Betting Control Board.
The Levy Board will consist of a chairman and two members appointed by the Home Secretary, two members appointed by the Jockey Club and one by the National Hunt Committee, and the Chairmen of two bodies to be set up under the Bill, namely, the Bookmakers' Committee and the Totalisator Board.
The House may remember that there were two schools of thought about the composition of this Board. The first advocated a small and disinterested Board containing representatives of the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee, who are concerned with the good of racing as a whole, but not representatives of sectional interests. Racecourse owners, horse owners and breeders would represent their views to the Board but would not share in its decision. The other view was that the Levy Board should be widely representative of racing interests. The Peppiatt Report, however, favoured the small Board and the Bill follows this course and adopts this view.
The Bill departs from the Peppiatt Report in proposing that the Home Secretary should appoint two independent members. The reason is to follow up what I said about the Home Secretary not interfering too much and to ensure that the Board should settle its own affairs. I believe that this is a sensible device for achieving that end. If there is disagreement about the amount of the levy or the means of collecting it, it does not seem to me that the Home Secretary is well qualified to resolve it, and that is why the two independent members have been added. It makes it possible to provide that, in the event of disagreement, the chairman and these other two independent members, by their casting votes, so to speak, should be able to decide.
Clause 2 confers on the Levy Board powers and duties connected with the advancement of horse racing similar to those which Section 11 of the Betting and Gaming Act gives to the Racecourse Betting Control Board. Under Clauses 3 and 4 the Bookmakers' Committee, about which I shall say more later, will in each levy period—that is, a period of twelve months beginning on 1st April—draw up a scheme for levying bookmakers. The scheme must secure that the levy shall be payable only by a bookmaker who carries on, on his own account, a business which includes betting transactions on horseraces. Bookmakers taking bets only on sports other than horse racing, such as greyhound racing, are not liable.
The scheme must divide bookmakers into categories, and hon. Members may remember that the types of category were

set out in the Peppiatt Report in some detail. The scheme must then determine the amount to be paid by bookmakers in each category. This gets over one of the original difficulties seen about the possibility of a levy being levied at all. With the aid of the Peppiatt Committee and the provisions of the Bill, we have overcome this difficulty. The scheme must require bookmakers to make declarations as to the category into which they fall. I should like to make it clear that it is for the Bookmakers' Committee to make the first move in preparing this scheme. They are the people who know about bookmakers and their methods of business.
All that the Levy Board has to do in this initial stage is to fix a date by which the scheme should be ready. When the Bookmakers' Committee has drawn up the scheme, it will be put to the Levy Board for approval. If it is approved, it will be promulgated. If, however, the Levy Board wishes to comment, the scheme can be referred back to the Bookmakers' Committee for revision. Only if agreement cannot then be reached after this process does the matter have to be decided by the chairman of the Levy Board and the other two independent members. I hope that I have explained how the Board will work and how, if necessary, the chairman and the two independent members will operate.

Mr. Ede: I see nothing in the Bill which limits the operations of the Bookmakers' Committee to the scheme adumbrated in the Peppiatt Committee's Report. It seems to me that the Committee is completely free to devise such schemes as it thinks fit, irrespective of anything that the Peppiatt Committee may have said would be suitable for operation.

Mr. Butler: The Committee is free subject to what I have said—subject to the final decision of the Levy Board and the manner of deciding it which I have described.

Mr. Ede: What the right hon. Gentleman says has no effect unless he puts it in the Bill.

Mr. Butler: This is a matter which we can examine during the later stages of the Bill. I have explained the intention. I can, however, see the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. If we have to put


anything further in the Bill—which I very much doubt from the investigations which we have made—we shall have to do it during the passage of the Bill.
Clause 4 deals with the procedure once the scheme has been put to bookmakers. They will be required to make declarations to the Levy Board as to the category into which they fall and, normally, they will be assessed according to their declaration. If, however, the Bookmakers' Committee decides, for one reason or another, that the declaration of the bookmaker cannot be accepted, the Committee can reassess him. The bookmaker then has a right of appeal to a special appeal tribunal set up under the Second Schedule to the Bill. The tribunal may confirm, increase or reduce the assessment or grant the appellant a certificate of exemption.
The procedure under Clause 4 depends upon two bodies which will be set up under the Bill. The first is the Bookmakers' Committee. The Peppiatt Committee contemplated that a Bookmakers' Committee should be responsible for the actual collection of the levy, but the Bill places this responsibility on the Levy Board because it must, in practice, be undertaken by a staff, and this staff can be most conveniently controlled by the Levy Board.
The Bookmakers' Committee, however, in addition to drawing up a scheme, will scrutinise individual assessments which are in doubt. What the Bookmakers' Committee does not do under the Bill is to undertake the actual collection of the levy. The virtual autonomy of the Committee is stressed by the provisions of the First Schedule, to which I draw hon. Members' attention.
It is, of course, essential that the Bookmakers' Committee should be representative of bookmakers generally. It is, therefore, proposed that it should be constituted in such manner as the Home Secretary may prescribe, after consulting with any body representative of the interests of bookmakers generally.
The other body to be set up is the appeal tribunal, or, rather, tribunals, since there will be one or more for England and Wales and one or more for Scotland. These tribunals will have important functions to perform. In view of this, my colleagues, the Lord Chancel-

lor and the Secretary of State for Scotland, intend to make an Order under section 10 of the tribunals and Enquiries Act, 1958, bringing the appeal tribunals under the Council on Tribunals. That will bring them under the latest supervision and scrutiny. The Second Schedule has been drafted with this in mind.
Paragraph 2 provides that appeals tribunals shall consist of three members: the chairman will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor in England and Wales and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland and must be a lawyer. It will be for the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint the other two members. Under paragraph 3, the rules of procedure of the tribunals are to be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor or Lord President of the Court of Session.
So much for the appeal system, which, I think, is well conceived and done in some detail. Clauses 6 and 7 deal with the contribution to be made from the operation of totalisators. As the House is aware, totalisators are at present operated by the Racecourse Betting Control Board. The broad effect of Clauses 6 and 7 is to reconstitute the Board under the new name of the Totalisator Board.
Since it will no longer be concerned with the distribution of a levy, Clause 7 (3) provides that, instead of a widely representative Board, the new Board should be composed of a chairman and three other members, all of whom will be appointed by the Home Secretary. It is contemplated that these four members will be appointed primarily for their business ability, although this should no doubt be combined with an interest in and enthusiasm for racing. The procedure for determining the amount of the contribution by the Totalisator is similar to that relating to the bookmakers' levy. The amount will be determined by the Totalisator Board in consultation with the Levy Board; but in the event of disagreement, the matter will have to be decided by the independent members.
Clause 8 makes provision for the audit of accounts of the Levy Board and the Totalisator Board. A report on the proceedings of both Boards, including their accounts, is to be made to the Home Secretary by the Levy Board and laid before each House of Parliament.
Clause 9 makes transitional provisions for dividing the assets and liabilities of the Totalisator Board between that Board and the Levy Board. So much for the terms of the Bill.
The House will wish me to say something about the taxation position, since this closely affects some of the provisions in the Bill. I understand that the levy on bookmakers will be allowable as an expense in computing a bookmaker's profits for tax purposes. As regards the Totalisator Board, the contribution will be similarly allowable. In other words, in both cases the contributions would fall before tax and not after. Nor would the money from the levy on bookmakers or the contribution from the Totalisator Board be taxable in the hands of the Levy Board itself.
The tax treatment in the hands of beneficiaries—those who get the grants—is more complicated, since it depends upon the circumstances of the recipient and the use to which the money is put. Broadly, however, in the hands of a person carrying on a trade—for example, a racecourse owner—a grant earmarked for revenue expenditure would be brought in as a trading receipt; a grant earmarked for capital expenditure would not. A grant to persons not carrying on a trade will not, in general, be liable to tax. The position, however, depends upon the general tax law, and I am giving only a general outline of what is the position.
I have been asked whether this is a hypothecated tax, whether it conflicts with the principle that all revenue raised by way of taxation should be paid into the Consolidated Fund and that all payments which are made by the authority of Parliament should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Perhaps I might deal with that point.
There is, of course, a distinction between tax raised by the State, which should not be hypothecated for a particular purpose, and a statutory levy raised by some body other than the State. The Peppiatt Committee goes into this in detail in paragraph 22, in which it gives some precedents for such a levy, and states:
… the levy on cinema takings for the benefit of British film production; the sugar

surcharge mechanism; the levy on the cotton industry; and the levy payments under Agricultural Marketing Schemes."—
although it points out that—
None of these provides an exact analogy to what would be necessary for the horse racing industry; but they serve to establish precedents for a statutory levy within a particular industry.
It might also be said that the levy payments, either by the bookmakers or the Totalisator Board, should be allowable against their profits for tax purposes, and, if so, in effect this means that a proportion of the levy is coming out of the Exchequer. The only answer to that is that the public at large will, in fact, benefit. The scheme is domestic to the industry, but its results will provide certain facilities which will be available to, and be very often used by, the public. I should like to make this clear. As I said in general about the tax, these concessions have not been specially agreed in relation to tax in regard to this Bill; they are in relation to the operation of the Income Tax law as it now is. That is all that I am trying to explain to the House.
If Parliament decides, as I hope we shall, that there is to be a statutory levy it follows that certain tax reliefs are enjoyed under the ordinary law. These reliefs are not absolute. The tax treatment in the hands of the beneficiaries will depend upon their circumstances and the use to which the money is put. Therefore, not all the levy will escape tax and it would be oversimplifying it to say so. I hope that the House has borne with me in this reversion to my previous habit of introducing Budgets, although this is very much more complicated than any such occasion, and I hope that I have made clear that the levy will not entirely escape tax.
I want to say a word about the timetable for the collection of the levy. The Peppiatt Report suggested that a provisional timetable, which involved the first full levy payments by bookmakers, should be made towards the end of 1962, and I see no reason why this should not be done. On the other hand, I see danger in any attempt to accelerate that timetable unduly. Much depends upon the care and skill which is put into the preparation of the first scheme. It would be a mistake, as there are not many precedents to work upon, to jeopardise the


smooth working of the Bill by trying to hurry this preparatory work. So much for the explanation of the Bill, how it is designed to work, and some of the reasons for its introduction.

Mr. George Wigg: May we take it that the timetable laid down by the Peppiatt Committee stands, as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, as a target at which we should aim?

Mr. Butler: I prefer to make it a target because so much depends on how soon we can get the Bill through our own machinery and that of another place. We are trying to stick to that sort of target and to the date which I mentioned in my speech.
The Bill, which might be regarded as unusual, strikes a chord. Literally millions of people, including hon. Members of the House, indulge in the pastime or sport of horse racing. The bloodstock industry is one of our most important and not by any means our most favoured, but one which can contribute to our export trade. It is also one of the prides of our country that we have the bloodstock industry that we have. There have been many hon. Members who have taken an interest in racing, not least Lord George Bentinck, who used to vote in the Lobby, in the time of Disraeli, wearing full hunting clothes and arriving only just in time for the vital Division of the day. I do not say that the Patronage Secretary would tolerate such behaviour in these times, but I do say that there are hon. Members, including some sitting opposite, who would not for a moment miss an opportunity of attending racing, of supporting it, or of getting it on its feet.
We have the example of the totalisator levy. This is a Bill for a bookmakers' levy. It says a great deal for the industry as a whole that there has been so much agreement that such a levy should be raised, and that we have, in a comparatively short time, been able to frame a scheme which, although complicated, will, I think, work in the outline that I have put for the consideration of the House. I therefore hope that the House's political and sporting instinct will support the Bill.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: As the Home Secretary rightly said, this is a somewhat unusual Bill, and we have had to consider very carefully what our attitude to it should be. On consideration, we support the Second Reading, although,I may say, with rather less enthusiasm than some of the racing interests.
As I shall try to show during the course of my remarks, I think that we need some safeguards and Amendments in the Bill to make sure that its machinery is not too much exploited by some racing interests to the disadvantage of other racing interests; and, so far as I am concerned, also to curb the somewhat exuberant appetite of the Jockey Club.
It seems to me that racing interests, or, at any rate, some of them, tend to exaggerate both the virtues and tribulations of racing today. It is true that racing is an agreeable and attractive part of the British scene and has a very considerable popular following. It is, in many ways, a democratic sport, but it is true, also, that racing is one of the bastions of snobbery in this country. And one should face this side of racing as well as its more attractive side.
There are, no doubt, people who own horses primarily for reasons of prestige and social standing, although not all of them; but there are such people. It seems to me that where there are such people it is quite right that they should pay something for what they get out of it. It does not seem to me self-evident that they should also be guaranteed a steady profit.
I shall listen with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) has to say on his Amendment, with which I have some degree of sympathy. It seems to me that one of the reasons why there is this obstinate refusal to extend to greyhound racing the sort of benefits given by the Bill to horse racing derives from this snobbery which is attached in some degree to racing. I have been looking back over some of the previous debates and to a speech made by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), in the debate in 1928, on the Racecourse Betting Bill, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Having lauded horse


racing, quite rightly and very eloquently, he then went on to dismiss contemptuously greyhound racing and greyhound tracks as
animated roulette boards".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1918; Vol. 214, c. 2349.]
This is wrong. One should not put these two forms of sport on such a totally different basis.
I think that another reason why there is this refusal to treat greyhound racing on the same broad basis as horse racing in this respect is the argument that horse racing contributes a very valuable export. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this point, though not, I admit, in this particular connection, but it has often been urged as a reason for discriminating between horse racing and greyhound racing. I hope that we shall not hear any more of that argument, because nowadays we hear a very different story.
The Peppiatt Committee was told that one of the reasons for this levy was that the export of bloodstock was now undermining British breeding. It is no longer now a good thing that these exports should be driven further and further; they are now regarded as a danger to breeding in this country.
There must, of course, be same balance between the export of animals and the retaining of animals for breeding here. The present export runs only at about £2 million to £2½ million per annum. If that is an excessive amount, if, as the Peppiatt Report suggest, it has to be reduced, if, in addition to that, more foreign horses have to be bought, then I do not think that one can say that horse racing will make any very significant contribution to the nation's balance of payments problems.
There is a tendency by some racing interests also to exaggerate the plight, the tribulations and the woes of racing today. One would think, to listen to some advocates of the Bill, and to this idea of a special levy as proposed in the Peppiatt Report, that horse racing was totally unaided at the moment and that it was on its last legs. Of course, neither of these things is true. Horse racing, in fact, receives under an Act of Parliament a very considerable annual subsidy running at well over a £1 million

a year. Racing gets £700,000 a year or so in respect of the Totalisator and £450,000 from charges on the on-course bookmakers.
Racing is, generally speaking, not in a desperate plight. The Peppiatt Report, in paragraph 19, says quite specifically—and the Committee was not unfriendly to horse racing—
It is not our view, however, that without a subsidy horse racing will rapidly decline or die. This is clearly not so.
So I do not think that there is any need for us to break our hearts about the plight of racing.
None the less, there seem to me to be cogent reasons, though rather more modest reasons than we have had put forward, for supporting the Bill—cogent arguments in logic and equity. It is, of course, true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that British racing has to compete, in effect, with racing in a number of other countries, and that we are falling behind—falling behind in the amount of prize money, in the subsidy for transporting horses, in the amenities on courses, in the rate of entrance charges, and in the introduction of new technical devices like the roving camera or the equipment for watering courses. We are falling behind our main competitors in other nations in these respects.
When we talk about falling behind I do not think that it is only because of lack of money. I think that it is, in part, due to rather self-satisfied complacency on the part of the racing authorities. I am not an expert on this, but when I look at these things going on it seems to me that the day has now long passed since British racing was leading the world in the introduction of new techniques. As regards the introduction of any new, modern devices, like starting-gates or the photo-finish—these things are at first rather pooh-poohed in this country, and then they are only rather reluctantly introduced. We are not leading the way any more.
I think, from the little race going I do, that there is grave neglect of the rights of the public on many of our courses, and I would have thought that one of the quickest ways of improving amenities on any course would be to make it a condition of this levy that every steward should spend some days


every year in the ordinary public enclosures to see the sort of things the public have to put up with.
None the less, although this is not the only factor, it is quite clear that we have other countries competing with us where more of the stake money is, in fact, ploughed back because most of their betting is done through the Totalisator, and it is, therefore, very easy to take a cut out of it. Most of our betting is done through off-course bookmakers, and it has so far been impossible to find a way of levying them. It was only when the Betting and Gaming Act was passed that it became possible at all to levy off-course bookmakers. Some people say that this Act was passed primarily to make it possible to introduce the Peppiatt proposals. Be that as it may, it does make it possible to levy off-course bookmakers, because they are now registered and licensed, and it does seem to me just that they should be brought in with the others, the Totalisator and on-course bookmakers.
It seems to me right on general considerations of equity that off-course bookmakers should be brought in in the way that is done in this Bill, but, of course, if one is to use what seems to me the really strong argument in favour of the Bill, the argument of equity, this principle of equity must be carried right through the whole of this set-up. As The Times pointed out on 16th October, if the proposals of the Peppiatt Committee are carried out the Totalisator will bear a very unfair burden compared with bookmakers.
The Peppiatt Report proposed, roughly speaking, as it calculated the sums, a levy at about £1 million or so out of a turnover of about £200 million. The Totalisator is paying four times, as The Times pointed out, as large a proportion of its turnover. As I read Clause 3—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me this—and Clause 16 it will be a duty of the Levy Board to remedy this sort of inequity as between the Totalisator and the on-course bookmakers and the off-course bookmakers.
The Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, is, even if rather reluctantly, supported by off-course bookmakers. I do not think that, on the whole, they are inspired by a philanthropic desire, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, to

share the burdens of their fellow practitioners. This is shown by the total failure to levy them on a voluntary basis. The voluntary levy on off-course bookmakers raised about £60,000 a year compared with the £450,000 a year which comes through on-course bookmakers.

Mr. Wigg: There may be some confusion about these figures, the voluntary levy of £60,000 and the £450,000 which comes from on-course bookmakers. Tney pay by way of admission under the authority of Act of Parliament. It is not a levy in any sense at all.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I was using the word "levy", I agree, very loosely. I meant a charge which they could not escape.

Mr. Wigg: It is not a charge they cannot escape. They have to pay to go in.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Those bookmakers have to pay five times as much as the public. But I agree with my hon. Friend that I was using the word "levy" loosely. I hope that I may be allowed to continue to use it as meaning a charge which Parliament makes possible.
One effect of the Betting and Gaming Act was to remove from bookmakers the fines which they always used to pay on cash betting. This was a rather heavy charge upon them, and, of course, the ending of those fines is a considerable off-set against the new levy. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the payments they make under the new Bill will be deductible expenses from Income Tax. In addition to that many of the recipients of the benefits of the levy will also receive them tax free in their hands. If this is, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly argued, merely due to the operation of the tax law, it still remains true that it constitutes an element of public subsidy which would not be there if the Bill were not passed.
The Bill brings new people and new payments under the benefits of the Income Tax Acts and law which would not be brought under those benefits but for the Bill. Therefore, this strengthens our right to demand a degree of public control, because there is an element of public subsidy as a result of the Bill. We should bear this in mind when we look in detail at the provisions of this Measure.
One feature of the Bill which causes me great concern is the way it breaches the fundamental principle of parliamentary control of taxation. This worries me very much. The Home Secretary said that he did not want too much Government interference. I can quite see that; but by getting rid of responsibility he is getting rid of parliamentary control at the same time. If the right hon. Gentleman takes some degree of responsibility, to that extent he is answerable to us. If he refuses any degree of responsibility we lose all control.
Although the Bill does not impose a general tax on everybody, it imposes an impost. This, from the individual bookmaker's point of view, is a compulsory payment imposed and enforced by law. For him it is a tax, and it has been a longstanding principle of the law that where people are taxed it should be done by Parliament. As I see it, the Levy Board can levy taxation and can vary the amount from year to year. It can also vary it as between categories. It can not only vary the total but actually the amount that falls on particular bookmakers as between one and another.
We should not allow the Board to have this sort of power of taxation on our behalf. It is not enough to delegate this power to the three nominees of the Secretary of State. They too are independent. They are not in any way answerable to Parliament and they should not have the right to tax in this way. The very least that the Home Secretary should do is to ensure that the levy has to be approved by him and has to be laid before Parliament in some form or another and considered by us. This seems to me a matter of great importance and the present Minister of Health made a very strong speech on these lines on 23rd May last. He is a right hon. Gentleman whose probity we all admire and I am sure that he will continue, with his increased authority as a Minister, to press his views upon the Government.
There is one other related point of principle relating to Clause 4 and I should be grateful if the Joint Under-Secretary of State would apply his mind to this. As I read Clause 4, the onus of proof lies upon the bookmaker if he appeals from the Levy Board to the

appeal tribunal. This was in the Peppiatt Report. It shocked me very much when I saw it there, but to see it in the Bill shocks me very much more. It is wrong and repugnant to our idea of law that any citizen, bookmaker or anybody else, upon whom a charge is laid by Parliament, direct or indirect, should have the onus of proof laid upon him when he challenges it. It should be put the other way round. If the bookmaker challenges the charge, the onus should not be put on him. He is a taxpayer in this connection. The onus should be put on the Levy Board.
As I read the Bill, I do not see anywhere in it anything that makes certain and obligatory that the appeal tribunal should sit in public. If there is not, it should be made clear. Obviously, the tribunal should be made to sit in public, but there is nothing in the Bill to say that it must.
I think that besides reasons of principle there are important practical reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should have to approve the levy and lay it before Parliament. The major issue for the Board will always be the amount of levy. On this, I think that there will be some rough jockeying for position and that the Jockey Club itself will be prominent in this jockeying. The Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee want the highest possible levy.
Frankly, I am fearful of the backstairs influence of the Jockey Club. It is one of the highest and one of the most haughty embodiments of the Establishment in this country and it has already shown its influence in the Bill. Why are there two representatives of the Jockey Club on the Board? The Peppiatt Report said that there should be one. The Home Secretary gave no explanation of this. It certainly ought to be changed. The Levy Board is grossly overweighted by having three out of its eight members representing those who are committed to the highest possible levy. If Parliament itself is to make it possible to raise the levy—as I think, on balance, it should—we should have enough control to make sure that it is not excessive.
As to the disbursement of the levy, under Clause 2 schemes for paying out the levy have to be approved by the Secretary of State, but I do not know


whether they have to be laid before Parliament. Accounts have to be laid before Parliament, but I am not sure whether actual schemes for spending the levy have to be laid before us. If not, they should be. There are points of public policy which ought to be discussed in public and controlled by Parliament.
The levy should not be used to prop up small uneconomic courses. This was recommended to the Peppiatt Committee—by interests who are themselves in favour of a levy. Paragraph 17 of the Peppiatt Report says:
Other witnesses, whilst agreeing that a great deal of money could usefully be spent on racecourses, drew our attention to three qualifications which should be taken into account:——
the third of these was that
Some of the smaller racecourses could never be made economic and should be closed.
This seems to me sensible. Part of the plight of racing arises from the uneconomic use of valuable land. It would be better to have fewer courses, better equipped and more continuously used. As the Economist said on 3rd December, it would, incidentally, release a lot of valuable urban land which we badly need and cannot allow to be wasted.
The other point about the disbursement of the levy is that it seems to me that not nearly enough of it in the past has been spent on public purposes. Under the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, a lamentably small amount was spent—only £60,000 out of £700,000 for breeding, veterinary science and education. There are no details of how much has been spent on veterinary science and education. These figures must be known, though I have never seen them. I suspect that it is a very small amount, and the Peppiatt Report makes very modest proposals for expenditure for public purposes.
I was disturbed by the statement by the Duke of Roxburghe, senior steward of the Jockey Club, as reported in The Times of 6th April. In welcoming the proposed levy, he said:
It is of the utmost importance that it is used to the best possible advantage and not frittered away on a diversity of objects.
That sounds suspiciously like a demand that as little as possible should be spent on public objectives, although the levy

is only made possible by a Statute of the Realm. If this attitude is likely to be represented—indeed overrepresented on the Board, there is all the more reason why Parliament should have proper means to watch over schemes for the spending of the levy.

Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend asked for information about the disbursement of money on veterinary science and education. He will find on page 16 of the Annual Report of the Racecourse Betting Control Board full details of the bodies and the amount disbursed.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It shows how ignorant I am, in these matters, but my guess is that the amount has been very small.

Mr. Wigg: If my right hon. Friend wants the particulars I will read them out to him. Under the heading, "For the Advancement and Encouragement of Veterinary Science and Education" there are £20,000 for the Equine Research Station of the Animal Health Trust, £300 for the Craft of Farriery, and £400 for the University of Cambridge, Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, making a total of £20,700 out of £76,750 devoted to the improvement of the breed of horses.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend; I wish that I had looked up the figures, because they strongly support what I have been saying. It is a laughably small amount devoted to public purposes out of a levy which is made possible only by an Act of Parliament. This must be remedied. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will catch Mr. Speaker's eye later and will develop at rather greater length the question of the use of the levy for public purposes.
The Opposition support the Second Reading, although we think that some rather important Amendments should be made to tie Bill in Committee—some to remedy omissions and some to remedy defects, one or two of which raise very great matters of principle and which must certainly be put right before we finally part with the Bill.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) made


an interesting speech. Although I would agree with some of it, there was a lot with which I would not agree. I would agree with him straight away when he talks about the neglect of the public in our racecourses. That is a matter which, we hope, will be remedied with the help of the Bill. At present, our racecourses do not provide for the general public in the same way as, we are told, is done abroad.
Perhaps at this stage I should declare an interest, because, in a small way, I am a breeder and also, in an even smaller way, an owner, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not do it for reasons of social prestige.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman has slightly misunderstood the question of exports of bloodstock from this country. He spoke as though the £2½ million exports would have to be brought back in some way. Surely that is not the point. We have the finest blood lines in the world, and there is a danger that we shall let go the goose that lays the golden eggs. Indeed, some of the very finest stallions that we have had have in recent years been sold abroad, and there is a danger that unless we replace them adequately buyers will not come back here as they have been wont to do in the past and as they did last week from all over the world—from places as far afield as Japan and South America—to buy these products. I have no doubt that the net exports of the industry will remain very valuable indeed to our economy.
The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of smaller racecourses and whether racing in this country might not, with profit, be centralised rather more as, I believe, it is in France. There, I confess, I have considerable sympathy with him. There are a large number of very small racecourses which are not very attractive from the point of view of owners or spectators. However, he went on to say that he hoped that this would release urban land. I certainly hope that no such thing will happen if he had in mind building. If racecourses were closed for racing, I would hope that they would remain permanent open spaces.
During the long hours upstairs when we were discussing the Betting and Gaming Bill, many of us in the Standing Committee wondered whether it would

really be possible for the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee, then sitting, ever to be implemented in the time we had in mind. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has been able to bring the Bill forward at such an early date. Appreciating the difficulties of getting legislation into the programme, I congratulate him very heartily on that achievement. I believe that he has produced a Bill which is neat and sound.
I also think that my right hon. Friend has produced a Bill which is flexible. I was a little anxious lest he should try to enact too completely the various recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I am very glad to see that he has given a good deal of flexibility to the Levy Board in its implementation of the intentions of the Peppiatt Committee. I believe that racing and the breeding of bloodstock not only gives a great deal of pleasure to a large number of people in this country, but, as I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Smethwick, has a very real part to play in the national economy.
There are not all those industries, even if they are small ones, in which our preeminence is so complete as it is in the bloodstock world, and it would, indeed, be sad if we were to cease to draw people from all over the world, as we did at the December sales last week, to buy our bloodstock. It is noticeable that even buyers from the Soviet Union were present and purchased our bloodstock.
My reading of the Bill is perhaps not quite correct, but as I see it, the Levy Board will be a new power in the racing world. I find it very difficult to see how it will be otherwise, because, ultimately, it has very considerable powers over those engaged in racing. Like the Inland Revenue, it is to be responsible for assessing and collecting, but, unlike the Inland Revenue, it will be ultimately responsible for redistributing. That may make it somewhat more popular. I have no doubt at all that, like the Jockey Club, which has monopolised the field as a private body for so long, it will be subject to a certain amount of criticism from time to time. No doubt people will enjoy criticising it in the future, but I hope that it will live down that criticism.
In the field of private sport we are perhaps a little loath to see the introduction of Government nominees, as we see being done in the Bill, because the real power in the Levy Board will reside in the chairman and the two independent members who come into play directly there is any dispute. I believe that we must regard them as the important people in the new Levy Board. However, I believe that that had to be done.
In view of the somewhat difficult principle mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman about the transfer of money by Act of Parliament between one branch of citizens and another, I am very glad that my right hon. Friend dealt with the point about contributions and their liability to tax. I think that this argument has been used to a certain extent falsely, because there are, after all, many trade associations in this country whose members are allowed to make their contributions allowable for tax purposes, and although in those cases the compulsion is different, it is a somewhat similar principle. My right hon. Friend also made it clear that in the hands of the recipients this money collected by levy will attract tax in the ordinary way. I have no doubt that many racecourses and others which will receive this money will find it very difficult not to attract a certain amount of tax.
I find very little fault with the composition of the Levy Board. As I have said, I believe it is right that the Government should have the three nominees. I wonder whom the Home Secretary will find suitable to carry out these powers. I hope that he will find for the chairman, in particular, someone with a good deal of foresight who will be able to make the new system work. I also wonder what the Government's intentions are with regard to salaries. In paragraph 339 of the Willink Report it was recommended that there should be increased salaries for the Racecourse Betting Control Board, which now becomes redundant. What is to happen in the case of the Levy Board?
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) speaks with a great deal of wisdom on these matters, and he has criticised the Bill because it does not make the category procedure more specific. My mind has worked in the

opposite direction. When the Peppiatt Committee came down in favour of the principle of assessing bookmakers by category on turnover, I was a little puzzled as to how it arrived at that decision and not preferred the Irish practice of having copies of betting sheets. Indeed, I still do not know why it turned down that proposal.
Consequently, it seems a pity that we should write into the Bill the system of categories, which many have critcised as being unfair as between one bookmaker and another. It seems to some of us an over-simplification to imagine it so easy to put all bookmakers into six different categories who can then pay accordingly. I hope that the Government will consider in Committee whether a little more latitude can be given on this point.
The Horserace Totalisator Board, as it will be when it is reconstituted, will mean five more appointments to be made by the Home Secretary. I hope that he will find sufficient people of the right calibre to carry this out. I believe the new Totalisator Board will have some very important work to do if it is to take advantage of the new situation created by the Betting and Gaming Act. That Act gives the Totalisator Board a monopoly in Tote odds, which will raise many questions. I believe that the Board thinks that by a system of commissions it will attract small off-course bookmakers into using Tote odds. I am told that that is probably not the case and that small bookmakers in country towns find it too difficult.
That leads to the very important question whether there should be Totalisator betting shops or not. There is not one Totalisator agency in the whole of the county which I represent. The nearest one is in Somerset. It will take something very much stronger than the Tote to amalgamate Dorset with Somerset in that or any other respect. I believe that the new Horserace Totalisator Board will have a very difficult task and that the chairman will have to be a man of considerable drive.
I have nothing but praise for the provision that there is to be an adequate report to Parliament every year about what is being done under the Bill. I only hope that it will be more specific


and enlightening than some reports we have received from other bodies in the past.
There are a number of other points, largely Committee ones, which come to mind—for example, the distribution of the levy when it has been collected. In the Bill, the veterinary services are not related in any way to horses. I should have thought that they definitely must relate to horses and be of benefit to horses. I heartily endorse the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that much more money might be given to veterinary science, which in this direction has made most amazing strides which could be of very great benefit to the industry. I refer particularly to the Animal Health Trust, at Newmarket, which is so ably run. It receives a very small amount in relation to its importance.
I have in this House criticised some of the distributions that have been made by the Racecourse Betting Control Board in the past. I hope that they will be looked at carefully, so that the money is spent to the best advantage to the whole bloodstock industry.
This is a sound Bill, which will be to the benefit of the industry as a whole, and to all those engaged in it. Among those I include the stable lads, who do not receive very high wages, but who carry out a task which is very exacting and involves considerable risk to life and limb. The Bill should enable them to get slightly better wages.
I hope that people who are interested in, but who seldom attend, race meetings will benefit as well as those who attend regularly. I hope that the Bill will do something to help a breed which we have developed over the past three hundred years and countless generations and which has been built up from something which was of interest to a few to something which is of interest to a great many and which is of benefit to our national economy.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: In accordance with the traditions of the House I must declare two interests. First, as most hon. Gentlemen know, I am a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, in which position I followed the very distinguished services rendered by my hon. and learned Friend

the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
The second interest is a passing one—at any rate, it has passed. For a brief period I was interested in a racehorse. That was not for reasons of prestige, but because I was interested in that particular horse. Unfortunately, as I came to suspect, there was something wrong with the horse and he will not race any more.
I had the horse long enough to discover that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said is very far from the truth. I certainly did not acquire an interest in the horse from the point of view of snobbery and I certainly did not do it for profit. Anybody who believes that ownership of a racehorse, particularly one racing under National Hunt Rules, is connected with either of those two objects should have gone racing at Lingfield last Saturday afternoon. One acquires a horse because one is fond of horses and likes being out in the rain. The physical conditions at Lingfield were about as unpleasant as they could be, and no one would have gone there unless he liked being out in the open. Racing is an impelling force. It takes people away from the fireside to watch horses in all sorts of weather.
I was also interested in what my right hon. Friend said about the influence of the Jockey Club. I agree that, on paper, it seems to be a rather haughty, aristocratic institution. It is a survival of a system which has worked very well since the eighteenth century. The idea that it is haughty and takes to itself positive powers of direction is as far from the truth as it can be.
Since I have been on the Racecourse Betting Control Board I have learned that the Jockey Club does not provide the leadership which one expects. If the Home Secretary has a complaint against this important body, it is not that it is haughty, but that it is diffident and incapable in this modern age, because of the way it works, of acquiring the necessary knowledge to be able to give the lead which racing unquestionably requires at present.
My right hon. Friend spoke also about the disbursement of money under the Racecourse Betting Control Board Charity Trust for veterinary science, etc.


The Board is limited by the demands made upon it and the availability of money for other purposes. The total sum available is rather less than £700,000. Many demands are made upon it. So far as I know, it has never turned down a demand for more money made upon it by those concerned with veterinary science. What the future will hold when very considerable sums of money may be available is another matter entirely.
It is important to realise that the Bill is a triumph for what are, after all, the typically English virtues of common sense and compromise. It is for that reason that I commend it to all those who seek the well-being of racing and, further, to all those who through their presence in the House are concerned with the government of their fellow men. It is an exercise in the political art by the right hon. Gentleman, who is superb in this field. The public is not greatly interested in this subject, and in very difficult circumstances the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to obtain the highest level of agreement.
On the whole, he has succeeded. The only people complaining about it at present are those like my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), and I think that, in the event, it will be shown that their bark is much worse than their bite. There is not a great deal to be said for my hon. Friend's suggestion that greyhound racing should have been included in the Bill. However, I shall not spend time on that aspect, because other hon. Gentlemen will wish to do so.
It is perfectly clear that the consideration of this Bill is not merely a question of providing for certain vested interests. There is a great deal more in it than that. We are not merely considering the shutting down of uneconomic racecourses. If that were done we should be eliminating what we call the smaller racecourses. By doing that we should not be hitting at the rich racecourses like Ascot, or the big courses in and around London, but at the smaller courses like Uttoxeter and Wye, and such courses which supply local needs.
If hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble to look at the actual distribution of meetings over the course of the year—I will weary the House by giving it the details

—they will see that on ninety days there is one meeting; on ninety days two meetings; on sixty days three meetings; on thirty-eight days four meetings; on ten days five meetings; on six days, six meetings; on two days, seven meetings; on one day, eight meetings; on two days, nine meetings; on one day fourteen meetings and on one day sixteen meetings. Of course, the days on which there is a tremendous number of meetings are Bank Holidays, when thousands of work-people escape from their humdrum lives and go racing.
It would be a very real loss to racing and to our national way of life if any-think were done to interfere with these meetings. Indeed, this is one of the answers to those who make comparisons between what happens in England and what happens in countries abroad. Foreign countries have a Tote monopoly and a degree of centralisation. Those who, like myself, have had the opportunity to go to race meetings abroad—in my case, it was while I was in the Army—sometimes became a little weary towards the end of the season. The splendour and colour of English racing is its variety, and that we want to retain as far as possible. But of course, we have to pay a price for it.
A friend of mine went to Düsseldorf a week ago and he assured me that the standard of racing there was the standard that we expect at Folkestone. The price of admission was about 8s. One of the amateur riders of the day carried off a prize of £1,200 and the total distributed was nearer £5,000. These are things that we can only dream about in this country. They are beyond our means. We should be paying a very heavy price if we went too hard after them too quickly, because it would be at the expense of some of the smaller meetings
I was surprised that my right hon. Friend did not talk about our Midlands courses. I have the good fortune to live in the Midlands. I think that places like Wolverhampton and Birmingham are doing a job the importance of which ought to be recognised. Let us take Wolverhampton, for example. Its course is leased from the corporation for twenty-one years. It does not attract horses of very good class. The races are arranged in such a way as to give reasonable fields. Those concerned have


introduced a system of watering. They have three tracks, or rather will have—a steeplechase track, a hurdle track and a flat-racing track.
By arrangement with the local authorities the course is also used as a playing field by the young people. The same sort of thing is happening in Birmingham. I want to see that arrangement extended. I do not want to see our green fields built over in the interest of Mr. Cotton and Mr. Clore. If people want to play rugby, football, cricket or tennis, or want to swim, one way of doing these things, it seems to me, is by using the racecourse between meetings for that purpose The extent to which—

Mr. A. Lewis: As is done with the greyhound tracks.

Mr. Wigg: The trouble with my hon. Friend is that he overstates his case. In the debate on 9th March, 1956, he made a very good case, but all the virtues are not due to the owners of greyhounds nor to the greyhound tracks.

Mr. Lewis: I said, in support of my hon. Friend, that that was now happening on greyhound tracks. That is another point which should be borne in mind in giving fair treatment to greyhound racing.

Mr. Wigg: I am delighted to hear that the greyhound tracks do that, but that is not all that they do. I do not want to become involved in polemics on that point.
The racecourse in the proximity of an important industrial area does something more than provide a facility for what is termed the snobbish section of the population. That is certainly so in the case of Wolverhampton and Birmingham. Both these places are performing a very important function in the areas which they serve. The snobbishness is, of course, to be found in the management of Ascot. There is no case for money being given under this Bill for the survival and extension of Ascot as it is organised at the present time. And the Ascot office is an anachronism which ought to be abolished and I am sure that every well wisher of racing would agree with me when I say that. However, one cannot make out a case on the

basis of what happens at Ascot. One has to take what exists over the country as a whole.
That leads me to the point of what this Bill does and what it does not do. It seems to me wrong to suggest that the Home Secretary, the Racecourse Betting Control Board or others interested in the Peppiatt Report and the Betting and Gaming Act are concerned to establish a Tote monopoly. One of my hon. Friends said in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, "Ah, the first step towards a monopoly."
Anyone who goes racing is anxious to retain the bookmaker and to create the conditions in which he can fulfil his legitimate function. For the bookmaker adds to the charm of it all. It would be rather flat if the bookmaker were not there, for even if one backs a loser it is some consolation to get 3 to 1 about a 6 to 4 chance. It is small satisfaction, but it is there. If a Tote monopoly ever comes about the people mainly responsible will be those bookmakers who have refused to accept the underlying principle of this Bill which is based on co-operation between Tote and bookmakers.
I think that the Home Secretary's approach has been based on a desire to consult with all the interests concerned and to secure their co-operation. I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues on the Racecourse Betting Control Board. It has been their policy to get the co-operation of the bookmakers in the interest of racing as a whole. I should have thought that it was of direct interest to all those who earn their livelihood in racing that the industry should flourish.
One has to accept that to many like myself racing is a sport while to others it is a business. These are divergent interests, but I am sure that the one thing that unites everyone is the desire not to eliminate the bookmakers but to place the industry on a sound foundation. In my judgment, that sound foundation is to be found not in the prosperity of the owner, because the average owner, if he has any common sense and if he is interested in the limited way in which I operate—having a share in a few hairs in the horse's tail—knows before he starts that he is going to lose money.
People may boast that they make a profit out of owning horses but, in the main, they do not. If they are wise they accept the fact that they are not going to make any money. The prosperity of the industry is really tied up among the breeders, on the one hand, and the trainers, on the other.
I want to see the industry run in such a way that the trainer who is moderately successful and can make a living by practising his art without having to fall back on betting. Once he has to do that, when he has to get a reasonable return for his money and the horses will start to be "readied" to ensure not only that they will win when "wanted", but that the price is a good one.
What the public want above all, and what my right hon. Friend's constituents in Smethwick as well as mine in Dudley and those in Birmingham and Wolverhampton want, is a run for their money. They want a chance to have a bet and I see nothing wrong in that. Having had that, however, they want to be able to go to the races and to take their wives or their girl friends. One has only to see the popularity of some of these meetings to understand how the figures soar. At evening meetings, or at Bank Holidays, people want to be able to go to the races at a fair price and to have reasonable amenities. They say frankly, however, that the feeding and drinking arrangements at some of our major racecourses are a public scandal. They should not be tolerated for five minutes. The charges are excessive and the facilities are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. These things should be put right.
Here again, however, we have been caught up in two world wars. Economically, matters have been somewhat "dicey" and it is only now that we find ourselves getting round to this problem. I believe that the Government's approach is the right one in framing the Bill as they have done, to have the Levy Board and to have a representative on it from the Bookmakers' Committee, and to leave the bookmakers to work out their own affairs and then to come forward to the Levy Board with their proposals, which, I believe, in the majority of cases, will find acceptance.
The Home Secretary is trying to secure co-operation and I believe that he will get it. I believe that he has had

adequate consultation with the bookmaking interests. Despite what individual people may say, I believe that although there may be a few teething troubles, it will all work out in such a way that the powers reserved to the independent members and the chairman of the Levy Board will not be required. The bookmakers will be given the opportunity to work out the position in their own way.
That is an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick concerning what he regarded as something of a scandal about the production of evidence. Each bookmaker will himself be given the choice of saying into what category he thinks he should go. It is quite simple. The categories will be drawn fairly widely and the bookmaker will make his choice. If his fellow bookmakers consider that he has been "dodging the column", they may say, "You say that you should go into that category, but we think that you should go into another." They then say into which category they think he should go and it is loft to him to prove that he is right and they are wrong.
On the question of political theory, regarding it as an outrage that a Bill of this kind should be used as a form of taxation, I can almost see the ghosts of John Stuart Mill or of Cobden, or even of Gladstone.

Mr. A. Lewis: Or of Hampden.

Mr. Wigg: Or of Hampden, as my hon. Friend suggests.
It is all very well to conjure up ghosts, but we are living in the year 1960 and we on this side, above all, have turned our back, so I had thought, on the principle of laissez-faire. I understand it from the right hon. Member for Wolverharnpton, South-West (Mr. Powell), because he is a Gladstonian Liberal, but I do not understand it from these benches. I would have regarded it as a principle by which we stand that the power of the State should be used to regulate and to regulate as far as is compatible with freedom.
That is exactly what the Bill sets out to do from the outset. It sets out to give the maximum amount of freedom. As, however, the Home Secretary is answerable to the House of Commons, he must somewhere have a handbrake and he is


to have it through his seven nominees on the Totalisator Board and on the Levy Board. With one proviso, the Home Secretary is meeting all possible arguments.
The one proviso is the size of the levy. The guess of the Jockey Club is that it should be £3 million. The Peppiatt Committee come down with a figure of £1¼ million. Hon. Members should realise that perhaps one of the greatest problems of all, when the money has been raised, is how to spend it. Let us do a little sum. The Racecourse Betting Control Board spends, say, £600,000. The workings of the tax provisions will mean that that sum is doubled. Then, there is £1¼ million. This is a considerable sum to spend. The pattern of racing might, in fact, be distorted for a long time to come unless this money is spent wisely and gradually.
It is true that we do not quite know how this will work out. Estimates may be made about how much money should be raised, but it may so happen that because of prosperity, because of lower charges, better racing and increased amenities, racing may tap a new public, in which even a levy based on a principle which, if soundly conceived, would yield £1 million, might bring in £2 million. The point could be reached—it has been reached in other countries—when too much money has been an embarrassment. As we have already seen, by giving considerable prizes to handicaps we may already be distorting the values of sires in the eyes of breeders, not only in this country but abroad.
Therefore, given the Bill as it stands, the House should accord it a Second Reading, but we should also remember that wisdom lies upon the lines of one step leading to the next. If I may push this just a little harder in relation to the affairs of the Tote Board, if one looks at the figures with care it is clear that there appears to be what I would call a natural increment. The amount of the turnover increases every year by about 3 per cent. That is because the idea of betting on the Tote is catching on. More and more people who go racing begin to see that in certain categories of races, on certain horses at certain prices, the Tote will invariably pay better prices than, say, the starting price bookmaker. Therefore, for that reason, plus the impact of

television, the turnover tends to increase and it is likely that when the Bill becomes law—none of us quite knows how it will work—we might get a sharp break-through.
If, for example, as a result of an advertising campaign or steps of that nature, or even because the public became increasingly aware of the advantages of the Tote, with the result that it became popular overnight, enormous problems would be created. Already, when demands are made for extra windows on racecourses, it is extremely difficult to find the staff to deal with them. Possibly, the only way of handling any expansion is mechanisation, but that would involve the expenditure of large sums of capital. This, too, needs to be considered with caution, particularly if the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee force upon the racing authorities some degree of centralisation on the ground that too much money must not be tied up in electric wires, electric bulbs and the like.
To hon. Members who have doubts about the wisdom of the £1¼ million, I can only say that we do not know. The Government do not know. I thought that in his speech of 23rd May, the Home Secretary was adopting the right line when he said that he would leave it—to what? It is being left to the common sense of the two representatives of the Jockey Club, the representatives of the National Hunt Committee and of the Bookmakers' Committee and the three nominees to work out a scheme, not only for the raising of the money, but for its spending. I believe that hon. Members who think that there is a danger in not having a ceiling are worrying themselves unnecessarily, because it will not be as easy to spend this money wisely as would at first appear.
So far, I have spoken in my personal capacity, but I would now like to make one or two points on behalf of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. There is one point in particular which the Board wishes me to put before the House. In the past, each year an amount of money, as approved by the Home Secretary, has been paid into the Racecourse Fund out of the annual earnings of the Totalisator. The money from this fund has been distributed to racecourses in accordance with a formula Which has been agreed


to by the Jockey Club, the National Hunt Committee, and the Committee of the Racecourse Association. The formula has been on a maintenance and Totalisator turnover basis.
Racecourses have, therefore, known that in the normal course of events they would be credited each year with a certain amount of money from the Racecourse Fund and, in consequence, they could plan their expenditure accordingly. Some courses have spent several years anticipated grants in one year, knowing full well that they could expect to be reimbursed in due course. The expenditure receives the approval of the Home Secretary as a proper subject for payment from the Racecourse Fund, and each racecourse which has undertaken an approved project has eventually been reimbursed by its annual allocation from the Racecourse Fund.
At present some courses have a number of outstanding approved claims which will not be satisfied by the amount of money available for distribution from the Racecourse Fund by the Racecourse Betting Control Board early in 1961 out of the money earned by the totalisator in 1960. If the Racecourse Betting Control Board continued to distribute the Racecourse Betting Fund it would see to it that all approved claims were eventually satisfied.
However, under the Bill, the distributive function of the Racecourse Betting Control Board is to be transferred to the Levy Board, together with certain assets and liabilities, including the Racecourse Fund. It means that these outstanding approved claims, which in the ordinary course of events racecourses could expect to be met, are not liabilities in the strict sense of the word, but the expenditure has been undertaken by them in good faith and in the belief that they would be reimbursed in due course from the Racecourse Fund.
Clearly, the policy of the Levy Board cannot be anticipated but the Racecourse Betting Control Board feels that the Levy Board should recognise the moral obligation to meet all outstanding approved claims on the Racecourse Fund. I realise that a Board which has not been legislated for, let alone is in existence, cannot be committed, but the Racecourse Betting Control Board—and, of course, the Racecourse Association and

individual racecourse owners back this up—would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance that the attention of the Levy Board will be drawn to this situation so that it can take it into account in deciding its distribution policy.
In other words, there are moral obligations here which the Racecourse Betting Control Board would normally honour and which it naturally expects and hopes that the Levy Board will undertake to meet. It hopes that the Levy Board will meet these approved claims which have been entered into in good faith.
I hope that when we have finished with the Bill today our Committee stage will not be protracted, but there are two or three points which I should like to draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. First, Clause 7 (6) amends Section 11 (3) of the Betting and Gaming Bill, 1960, in such a way as to restrict the Totalisator Board's investments to trustee investment. It seems to me that such a restriction is, in principle, unnecessary, and in practice inappropriate for a statutory body whose accounts are subject to audit and scrutiny by the Home Office. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the possibility of amending Clause 7 (6), lines 42 to 45 by deleting the words from "and" to "other". If he does that, and if at this same time he amends Clause 2 (1, d), it would remove the same restriction from the Levy Board. It would, I think, remove what might be an obstacle to the future success of the Totalisator Board and the Levy Board.
There are two other small points. First, Clause 9 (3) deals with compensation to Tote employees who are not given employment with the Levy Board. I do not think that this is likely to arise in practice, but it seems to me that a period of one month is unreasonably restrictive. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether six months would be more—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that it would be more appropriate to deal with this in Committee.

Mr. Wigg: I agree. I am only making points which might arise, and which the right hon. Gentleman might like to consider. I am not putting them forward


as Amendments, but putting forward what might be weaknesses in the Bill. I have not the detailed information on which to make up my mind definitely.
The third point is this. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 3 (1), the Levy period is given as the "first day of April". There may be considerable argument for the levy period being the period of the financial year, but I would point out that one can get two Easter Mondays in one levy period, and, because of the popularity of racing on Easter Monday and over the Easter holidays, it would make comparison between the periods difficult. I wonder, therefore, whether the right hon. Gentleman would look at the possibility of the levy period being the calendar year rather than the period in the Bill.
I am sorry to have kept the House for so long, but the points I made on behalf of the Board are of such substance in the interests of the Board, and of racing generally, that it was necessary that they should be made. I think that this is a good Bill. I think that it is a wise Bill. I think that it could be altered, but I am not sure whether any attempt to alter or amend it would necessarily improve it. The Bill therefore has my support. I hope that it will speedily become law, and that those who are engaged in the task of operating it will do so on the basis of securing the maximum co-operation, in the interests of racing, between those who seek to serve those interests either as a sport or as a business.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Richard Stanley: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He made an extremely sensible speech on this subject, as I knew he would. One thing about following the hon. Gentleman is that one never has to say so much oneself because he has made all the extra points which one intended to make.
I was sorry to hear that he had had bad luck on the first horse he owned in this country. I am sure that he was more successful when he owned horses in Bagdad in the old days, perhaps even riding them himself. Even though he

cannot do that in this country, I wish him success.
I too must declare my interests. I am a breeder, it seems rather an unlucky owner, and a member of the Jockey Club. The Jockey Club is called a lot of names, and has a lot of things said about it, but never before have I heard it called a backstairs club. I always thought that it was called the complete opposite, but it was surprising to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) call it that. People do not seem to think that it is quite so haughty as one hon. Member said.
When we look at the purposes of the Bill, we see that money is needed for racecourse amenities. People who do not go racing but who bet should obviously pay their contributions. Everybody who puts money on a horse should contribute, and the bookmakers ought to pay something. The bookmakers sit back and make a pretty good living. I know that some are not too successful, but others make very large profits out of racing. They may scream and say that they do not wish to pay the levy, but I see no reason why people who take a lot of money out of a sport should not put something back. At the moment people who go to see racing have to pay a lot to do so. That is because very few people can go. Those who do not go derive a great deal of pleasure from racing; one needs only to stand outside the gates of a factory in the rush hour to see people buying evening newspapers. They do not want to look at the headlines on the front page. They do not want to read anything about the Big Three; they wish to know who won the 3.30 p.m., and at what price. People who derive that kind of pleasure from racing should put something back into it.
I agreed with much of the speech of the right hon. Member for Smethwick, but he got a little muddled when he was talking about the breeding of racehorses. He was out of his depth when he talked about the technicalities of the sport. He spoke about jockeying for position, but I do not think that in this respect he had a position to jockey for. In the years before the war we could keep our best racehorses and export the second-best. The prices we got were very high, because there is no doubt that Britain is the best


breeding ground for horses, cattle or sheep, and people have to come here to buy their stock. Now we are allowing certain of our best horses to go out, because there is not sufficient money in the industry and people have to sell their best horses in order to make a profit. I hope that the Bill will help to remedy this situation.
Some people might say, "It is all very well to say that, but there seem to be more and more horses in training than ever before." There certainly are, but they are short-distance horses, which run mostly as two-year-olds and can get only five or six furlongs. These are the horses that people like to have, because they need keep them for only one year. This involves them in less expense, and they can have a few bets on them. They are useless for export, because no one wants them. From inquiries made of the three leading export bloodstock agencies I have discovered that over 88 per cent. of their exported horses are animals which can get a mile or more. It is more expensive to keep and breed these horses, and we must therefore ensure that money is available to enable this to be done.
We would probably all agree that some money must be given to veterinary science. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) that veterinary science in respect of racehorses has reached a high level in this country; I think that it is deplorable. I am not blaming the veterinary surgeons. They have had little money, and have not been able to expand. Their knowledge of horses is on a par with the knowledge of doctors in the eighteenth century. If a horse is lame a veterinary surgeon will say, "Rest it for three months." That is not an awful lot of good. I am sure that these people would be able to attain a far greater knowledge of the subject if they could study longer and could obtain up-to-date instruments.
I wanted to have one of my animals X-rayed. The machine had to be brought up from Newmarket, but as it was raining the X-ray operators said that it could not work because they could not do X-rays in the rain. Surely there must now be places where one can always have a horse X-rayed. There are many cases like that. I do not believe that it

is yet possible to carry out proper X-rays on the whole of a horse's body. It is always said that it is quite impossible to obtain an accurate X-ray photograph of a horse's body. Money spent in veterinary science would be all to the good.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we should have brand-new and up-to-date racecourses, meaning a centralisation of racing. Considering the matter purely in terms of commercial interests he is absolutely correct, but it would nevertheless be a disastrous day if it happened. Many people make a day out of their visit to a racecourse. They go there on Easter Monday, or at Whitsuntide, or occasionally on a Saturday. They go in parties with their friends, and have a terrific time. Sometimes the racing is merely an excuse. They get there at about noon and leave at about ten in the evening. They have a jolly good time. Commercial interests should not weigh too much in this matter.
There is another factor in respect of which owners will have to pay more money but which helps those people who do not go on to the racecourses. Overnight declarations have come in. This is a terrific loss of liberty for owners, and I feel that they are entitled to get something back. Formerly they could make up their minds whether or not to run their horses as late as three-quarters of an hour before the race. Under the new Jockey Club rule, however, an owner must make up his mind by 11 o'clock on the day before the race, and if, after having said that he is going to run his horse, he changes his mind without a reasonable excuse, he will have to pay a heavy fine. Owners are entitled to get a little extra in prize money.
Two other factors which help non-racegoers are the ciné camera and the photo-finish apparatus. Both these instruments are there to ensure that the correct result is arrived at. I am not absolutely certain of my facts here, but I believe that less than half a dozen of our National Hunt racecourses have photo-finish apparatus. I do not know whether the ciné camera is used at all National Hunt racecourses; it has been used only occasionally on the flat. It is very expensive—£150 a day—and the small courses cannot afford that. I hope that the Board will finance the project so that all racecourses can have


the best means of arriving at the fairest results.
Another aspect of the problem is doping. In the summer and autumn there was much talk about this. Many horses were said to be doped. A horse in the stable where my horses are trained was doped. It was nearly killed. It could hardly stand for 48 hours. This points to the need for better security precautions, and they cost money. All this would help to safeguard the person who has his bet without going near a racecourse. Therefore, as he would be given a fairer run, I think that he should not grumble about having to pay some of the expense.
This is a very sensible Bill, because it ensures that off-the-course bookmakers will have to pay back something for what they derive from the sport. In the financial page of one of our newspapers I saw the turnover figures of a big firm of bookmakers, and it seemed to me that, in view of the very large profit it made, a little aid to racing would not do it much harm. On the whole, bookmakers have been very sensible about this. They have agreed in principle that it would not be a bad thing if money were given to the sport which keeps them going. To have obtained agreement on anything among a lot of bookmakers was a pretty good job, because they are the greatest individualists of all. The sport owes a terrific debt to Archie Scott, the man responsible for getting the bookmakers together. He deserves much praise for the work that he has done. We have heard that some bookmakers are saying that the levy is like a bloodsucker. I find it amusing to hear bookmakers call anything a bloodsucker; I have heard punters call bookmakers bloodsuckers on many occasions.
I think it a good and sensible Board. We must look at the Levy Board membership to see who has been selected and why. There will obviously be three people from the Home Office, and then we have the Bookmakers' Committee and the Totalisator Board representatives and the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee representatives. When this thing was first envisaged I was keen that breeders should be represented, but when I put forward that idea it was explained to me

that if the breeders were represented, there would have to be representatives of the racecourses and every other racing interest. Then the Board would become too unwieldy and each member would be looking for something for his section. But these other people can go to the Board and explain what money they want and why.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I think it may have been a slip of the tongue, but my hon. Friend referred to "three people from the Home Office". That is, of course, quite different from what is stated in the Bill—that there will be three people appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Stanley: I apologise, I was entirely wrong. I meant that they were appointed by my right hon. Friend.
Whether people like it or not, racing is ruled by the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. Some people think those the wrong bodies: I think they are the right bodies. But whoever rules racing must be represented on the Board which distributes the money for racing. The people appointed by my right hon. Friend cannot be experts, and therefore it is a good thing that they will be advised about the distribution of money for racing by representatives of the people who rule the sport. If the Bookmakers' Committee cannot make up its mind how to get the levy and therefore it is to be done by the chairman and the Home Secretary's two nominees, it is equally right that representatives of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee should not take part in that, because if they did they would be saying how much money they wanted. It is their duty to consider how the money should be distributed.
There are one or two things I wish to say about the Bill. They are small matters. Why should it be that if a Member of Parliament serves on either body he is to be disqualified from his membership of the House of Commons? In the past there have always been Members of Parliament on the Totalisator Board. Both the present members are doing good work. I hope that if Members of Parliament wish to become members of these bodies, they will be able to. Another question I have not


seen answered is, when is to be the change-over from the present Betting Control Board to the new organisation? I hope that it will be fairly soon so that the new body can settle down and work out its long-term plans. I hope that when my right hon. Friend picks the chairman of the Tote Board—

Mr. Stephen McAdden: The Levy Board.

Mr. Stanley: —the chairman of the Levy Board, he will select someone with good business experience. In the past I have maintained that the chairman should be a full-time worker, but I realise that that is not possible. He should spend at least three-quarters of his time at this work, but if he has other interests he cannot be expected to drop them in favour of a job which may last only five years.
I hope that the chairman of the main body will be a racing enthusiast as well as being someone who possesses the necessary knowledge. He will have to make difficult decisions. The important thing is to see that all parties have a real confidence in the organisation and then everything will run smoothly. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent Bill he has introduced. I think that its provisions will make racing much more successful and more pleasant for everyone.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I welcome the Bill I regret that its provisions were not included in the betting and gaming legislation, which was passed during the last Session. Subject to some reservations on Committee points, I propose to vote for the Bill, but I hope that we shall have an opportunity to consider it very carefully during the Committee stage.
One of the astounding things about it is that there is no requirement in the Bill that the Bookmakers' Committee shall include a bookmaker among its members. Bookmakers are gentlemen who look after their own interests pretty well, and they would like to be assured that there will be a number of bookmakers on that committee.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It has been the custom for many years that when a

matter is debated, and where it is known that there is controversy and different points of view, the Chair shall, so far as is possible, call hon. Members from either side of the House to express a point of view for and against the subject debated. This afternoon I have listened to every hon. Member who has spoken and they have all been in favour of the principle of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill.
In view of the fact that there is a reasoned Amendment in my name on the Order Paper which Mr. Speaker has stated he intends to call, and because it has been the custom and practice of the Chair invariably to call a reasoned Amendment immediately after the two Front Bench speakers have spoken, may I ask why it is that, to me at least, it appears that those interested in opposing the Bill are not able to be called?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Gentleman must be a little patient. The reasoned Amendment is to be called, but it was thought fit to have a general discussion before introducing the reasoned Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order. I brought in the question of the reasoned Amendment at the latter part of what I was saying. I was trying to explain that it is the custom and practice that hon. Members who have opposing points of view to the matter under debate should be called. I have been sitting here and I am not—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I cannot discuss with the hon. Member the selection of speakers by the Chair. Mr. Ede.

Mr. Ede: I have no objection to my hon. Friend's Amendment being called at such stage as seems convenient to the House, but I understood from what Mr. Speaker said to us that the exact wording of the Amendment might impose some difficulty about a full discussion on the general principles of the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the point I was making was not so much in relation to the calling of the reasoned Amendment but to the fact that there is known to be a difference of opinion about the Bill?


Leaving aside the question of the Amendment, it appeared to be—as always—that the horse racing interests and hon. Members in favour of the Bill were being called to speak, and I wondered why that was happening.

Mr. Ede: I do not know what any hon. Member will say until he speaks. I certainly gave no indication to anyone about which side I should come down. I was taken by surprise at the overwhelming enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for the Bill—or any Bill. I imagine that it was almost as much a shock to the Government as to me.
I wish to deal with the Bookmaker's Committee. I do not see any provision in the Bill for more than one committee. It is true that there are some sorts of committees of which there may be more than one, but England, Wales and Scotland cover a great amount of territory and there is a considerable variety of dealing in matters concerning racing and bookmaking in particular.
Will it be possible for local committees to be formed? I am assured by those who are well informed on this matter that there are 18 reputable bookmakers' associations in the country. Whether they vary in degree of reputability or not, I should not like to say, but I am assured that generally 18 associations are recognised. I should have thought it would be desirable that in some ways, either by grouping these associations or otherwise, there could be an assurance that the Bookmakers' Committee will be representative of the opinion of that particular calling right through the country and that it might also be possible for sub-committees, district committees, or some organisation of that kind, to be available to focus opinions in such a way tha tthey can be assured that all views on the matter are represented.
My correspondence discloses very considerable opposition among some of the members of the bookmaking fraternity to the proposal embodied in the Bill. I will not read what they have written to me, because much of it seems to be very uncharitable and, judging by the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, carries a quite unjustifiable assumption that all owners are extremely successful and do not need any

further prize money or anything else to keep them in at least the same state of life as bookmakers enjoy.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) approached the matter, I thought, in a way which makes it somewhat difficult to support the point of view he put forward. He said that the owners have lost a little liberty and ought to get some money in compensation. I understand that liberty is a thing whose price is above rubies. Any suggestion that because they have to make an overnight declaration they should be able to make a call on the fund to be provided by bookmakers seems a proposition which cannot be supported in the House.
I want to speak about another matter raised by the hon. Member for North Fylde. I understand, and it concurs with my recollection, that the members nominated by the Secretary of State on the Racecourse Betting Control Board are not paid. There may have been power to pay them, but I understand that they are not paid. I also understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley that he has never even made a claim for expenses incurred in attending to the duties of the Board. I see no reason for disqualifying people who accept a position like this if it is an honorary position, that is to say, if they do not receive any remuneration.
If the Home Secretary says that the duties of members of the Levy Board will in future be so heavy that he could not expect people to undertake them without remuneration, and would not consider anyone willing to undertake the duties voluntarily, I can understand the reason for putting this provision in the Bill. I should have thought that the House, the country and racing had been so well served in the past by the nominees of the Secretary of State that, unless it is to be said that they must accept remuneration, disqualification should be confined to those who demand or accept remuneration.
What will happen if a member of the Jockey Club, who is a Member of this House, is appointed to the Levy Board? Presumably, he would not get any payment from the Secretary of State, but suppose the Jockey Club proposed to make a small payment to one of its more impecunious members, if it has any—in


guineas, of course, not in pounds—for his services. Would he then be disqualified? If a member appointed by the Secretary of State is to be disqualified whether he accepts a salary or not, I cannot see why other Members of the House, nominated by other people, should be able to go on to the Board and receive some remuneration for their services without any disqualification.
I have only one particular case to bring before the House about which the Bill appears to be silent. It relates to Epsom. I am told that Epsom is now the only course on which bookmakers can set up a "joint" and carry on their business without being under the control of somebody or other. All the other open courses, I am told, have now been so controlled that every bookmaker is under some surveillance. Anyone can get on to the course at Epsom, but the Grand Stand Association is sharp, if anyone is seen setting up a "joint" on the Downs, to exercise its power to collect money off him.
On the assumption that a man is able to practise there, would he have to display his name and address? That is a matter which should be within the purview, either of the Bookmakers' Committee or the committee which manages the Jockey Club's racing personnel, whose assistance to racecourse executives in this matter is, I understand, fairly considerable.
Apart from that and some other points which are purely Committee points, I accept the Bill. I hope that it will become law and that the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: It is clear that the objectives towards which the Bill is directed are entirely approved on both sides of the House. We realise that aid is required to improve the horse racing industry generally and we would all agree with the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who said that racing in this country was falling behind in competition with horse racing in other countries. It would, therefore, appear to meet with general consent that something has to be done about it.
It is probable that there would be no dissent from the proposition that those who benefit from horse racing most and who at present make no appreciable contribution towards its expenses should be made to do so. Therefore, with the overall principle of what this Bill seeks to achieve I find myself in general agreement. Where I am not happy, is about the means through which the Bill seeks to reach those overall objectives.
When we were discussing the Peppiatt Report on 23rd May, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked for the views of hon. Members and said that attention would be paid to them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who was at that time speaking from the back benches and who was chairman of the Conservative Party Finance Committee, described the Peppiatt proposals, now reproduced in this Bill, as:
… a departure from what I might call the principle of the Consolidated Fund, upon which the public control of finance by this House basically rests—the principle that all revenue which is raised by the authority of this House shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund and that all Payments which are made by the authority of this House shall be made out of the Consolidated Fund.
It does not matter whether the impost on the bookmakers is called a levy or a tax. It is a compulsory extraction from them and it amounts to the same thing whatever it is called, since it is a statutory extraction made by the authority of the House.
Furthermore, the Bill earmarks the proceeds of that tax for certain purposes. In other words, it amounts to a hypothecated or tagged tax. When moving the Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told us that this was a problem and solution which were both domestic to the support of horse racing. We have heard from a number of hon. Members how surprising they think it is that the bookmakers have been prepared to agree to pay the tax. It is not in the least surprising to me that the bookmakers have been prepared to do so. If the position is translated to the sphere of the road user, and the same proposition was put to them then road users would hold up their arms and every other limb if it were suggested to them that the tax which they pay would be used for the


benefit of the sport which they enjoy. I cannot see that there is any fundamental difference between hypothecated taxation in the case of those who love horse racing and hypothecated taxation in the case of those who love and use roads. I am profoundly disturbed by the introduction of this hypothecated taxation in the Bill and I do not feel that it is a principle which we ought to encourage.
It has been suggested that there are precedents for this, but the Peppiatt Report itself says that none of the precedents presents an exact analogy. When dealing with the question of the timetable, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that there were not many precedents to work on. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West dealt with that question succinctly in these words:
the mere existence of a precedent for doing something of this kind is no argument in its favour."—[FFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1960; Vol. 624, c. 93–4.]
It is, therefore, with the greatest misgivings that I regard the method by which the Bill proposes to achieve objectives however reasonable in themselves.
By the Bill we are taking out of the control of the House the raising and spending of this money. The right way to do it would be for the levy to be made on the bookmakers by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget and for provision to be made under the subhead of a Vote for disposal of the money so raised. The tax and the use made of it could then be considered by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and, if necessary, investigated by the Public Accounts Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told us that the accounts will be submitted to him and that he will lay them before Parliament. I take it that they will then be available for investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. If not, I think that they ought to be.
Clause 1 (2, a) says:
The Levy Board shall consist of a chairman and seven other members of whom—
(a) the chairman and two other members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State;
that is to say, the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) told

us that there might be difficulty about spending the money which was likely to be raised by the levy. He also foreshadowed a steady rise in income. I would not disagree with either of those comments, but they point to the advisability of having someone appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to represent the point of view of the Inland Revenue rather than having all three Government appointments made by the Home Secretary, although my right hon. Friend made it clear that the appointees would not be representatives of the Home Office, but independent persons.
The Bill is trying to do the right thing, but in an extraordinary way, and I hope that we shall examine it very carefully in Committee.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to proceed further with a Bill which, while providing for a levy from bookmakers for purposes connected with horse racing, fails to take similar provision in regard to the sport of greyhound racing notwithstanding that a ten per centum pool betting duty is at present imposed on bets placed with the totalisator on greyhound racecourses while there is no equivalent duty payable in respect of the horse racing totalisator.
I have been in the Chamber throughout the debate. As hon. Members know, there are hon. Members on both sides of this House who are well known as horse-racing men. It is rather strange that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), everyone who has spoken has declared an interest of some sort in horseracing—it is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) did not actually declare his interest. The Home Secretary's interest is in the Bill itself, and the interest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) is that he was speaking for the Opposition.
There is not only a distinct bias in favour of horse racing but a distinct bias against greyhound racing and that is why I have moved my Amendment. I want to make it quite clear that I do not have a horse—not even a hair from the horse in which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) says he is interested. I have no interest in horse-racing, greyhound


racing or any other such sport, either as a breeder, an owner, a director of a track or anything else. I am, however, secretary of an all-party committee in the House that has been set up to secure the abolition of this 10 per cent. Pool Betting Duty. It is true also that in West Ham we have one of the finest greyhound tracks in the country, and my purpose in moving this Amendment is to draw the attention of the House, the Government and the public to the discrimination against greyhound racing and the favour shown to horse racing.
I should like here to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick, who quite rightly said that from his cursory examination of this Measure he felt that it was being brought forward without giving due consideration to greyhound racing. I think that that summarises his point. There is this complete antipathy on the part of the Government against greyhound racing; deliberately penalising this sport whilst encouraging horse racing.
You, Mr. Speaker, may not be aware, although those hon. Members who have already spoken and have horse racing interests are aware, that at most horse racing tracks there is a Totalisator. Those Totalisators are made by firms in this country. The well-to-do person who places a bet on the Totalisator at the horse track does not lose anything by way of duty or taxation. If the same Totalisator made by the same people and operating in exactly the same way is at a greyhound-racing track, the punter immediately loses 10 per cent. of his money in tax.
I am not for one moment arguing whether or not there should be a tax. If the Government want revenue and decide on even a 50 per cent. betting tax, I am quite happy, but they should put it fairly on both sports. It seems very unfair that the well-to-do company director who goes to Ascot or Epsom and bets on a horse should not pay tax, whereas the dock worker, the engineer, the bricklayer or the carpenter, who cannot go to the horse racetrack because he is working—the horse race meetings usually take place during the day—but goes to the greyhound track in the evening should lose 10 per cent. when he bets. That is discrimination, and I see no reason why it should be continued. Not only is it to be continued, but this

Bill will further aggravate the discrimination.
The Bill proposes a levy on bookmakers to improve and help the sport of horse racing. Incidentally, to digress for a moment on the subject of the Totalisator, I should add that although the user of the Totalisator at the horse-racing meeting pays no tax, a 4 per cent. levy is deducted by the Racecourse Betting Control Board to assist the development of the sport. That money is used for the benefit of that sport, but the same benefit is not given to greyhound racing from the Pool Betting Duty.
I do not object to a levy to help horse racing, but if the Government feel that that is right, why do they not feel the same about greyhound racing? Is it because horse racing is known as the sport of kings and is, perhaps, supported mainly by the well-to-do, while greyhound racing is supported by the working man? I do not know. The Home Secretary said that he did not think that there was an exact analogy. In what way? He mentioned that he had been to greyhound racing tracks that were really first-class. That, of course, is true. Some of the greyhound tracks in the big cities are first-class, but the right hon. Gentleman should see some of those in the suburbs that are not first-class. They have to struggle to keep going at all, and I know of at least four that have had to close down.
The Home Secretary also spoke of the cost of horse breeding, and of exports—if not today at least on other occasions. Greyhounds are exported to some 15 countries, and millions of pounds are earned by the Irish, who do a great export trade in them. If greyhound breeding and racing were to be encouraged, there is no doubt whatever that the greyhound breeders and the greyhound racing people could earn quite considerable sums by exporting greyhounds to America, which is one of the fifteen countries I have just mentioned.
I am glad to see that the Home Secretary has returned to the Chamber, because I say again that in this connection there is an exact analogy between horse racing and greyhound racing; with the exception, of course, that, in the main, greyhound racing is supported by the poorer section of the population


whereas horse racing is supported by the not-so-poor section—

Mr. Wigg: Having made that assertion twice, my hon. Friend must believe it. I just wish that he would go to Epsom Downs on Derby Day. He would see how true his assertion really is.

Mr. Lewis: I agree that occasionally the working man does seek to get in on the rich man's preserves, and gets a few crumbs from his table. I do not want my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley to interrupt me again. He spoke for 33 minutes, and it is not my intention to speak for as long as that, because I hope that some of my hon. Friends who share my point of view will have an opportunity to take part in this debate—

Mr. John Farr: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I want to carry on because, as I have just said, I hope that it will be possible for some hon. Members to be called who have not yet had an opportunity to put the other side of the picture. If I give way too much and, as a result, take too long, perhaps only those supporting the horse racing side will be called.
I understand that this levy will be made on bookmakers on a basis of profits and that the money will be used to help horse racing. That may be all very well, but a name comes to my mind—Mr. Jack Solomons. He is, perhaps, known better for his activities in the boxing world, but he also happens to be a bookmaker. Jack Solomons takes bets on horse racing and on greyhound racing. In fact, the bookmaker who takes bets on greyhound racing will be in the position of having to contribute towards a levy for the improvement of horse racing, and some of the money will come from greyhound racing. Again, there will be this anachronism. The off-course bookmaker who gets his money from those who put their bets on greyhound racing will be making a contribution.

Mr. Eric Johnson: Will the hon. Member explain that? I thought that he would contribute only from such moneys as he took on horse racing.

Mr. Lewis: I am very glad that the hon. Member has taken that point. If the suggestion is that it will be possible to differentiate between what is earned on horse racing and what is earned on greyhound racing, there is no reason why there should not be a levy, with proper differentiation, on the amount earned from greyhound racing ploughed back into greyhound racing as opposed to being ploughed back into horse racing. The argument has always been that it is difficult to differentiate between the two. I am very glad that the hon. Member has made his intervention. There is no argument at all to show why there should not be some system of levy for the benefit of greyhound racing. Obviously, the amount would not be so large; it could be agreed among people in the industry.
The Home Secretary has said that there is unanimity of opinion on this matter in the horse racing world but there is not such unanimity in the greyhound racing world. I have met no one in the greyhound racing fraternity who would object to what we propose. The various societies and associations in the sport would be quite willing to operate on a basis exactly similar to that which is envisaged in the Bill. I see no reason why the Home Secretary could not, if he liked, set up another Peppiatt Committee to investigate the greyhound racing side, asking such a committee to be as speedy with its recommendations or proposals as, apparently, the previous Committee was asked to be quick with its consideration of horse racing. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who is not here at the moment, who suggested that there should be expedition in getting this Bill through the House in favour of horse racing, would ask that the same expedition should be shown in respect of a similar Bill concerned with greyhound racing.
I shall finish in a moment or two because I hope that hon. Members opposite who share my views on this matter, and who have no personal interest whatever in greyhound racing, will have an opportunity to speak in support of the Amendment. I emphasise that I am not against the Home Secretary's Bill as such. In my view, however, the time is long overdue when this pernicious discrimination against one kind of sport in favour of another should cease. If the Treasury


feels that it needs money for the revenue and that the Totalisator should be taxed, the tax should apply whether the sport be horse racing or greyhound racing. If it is felt that the sport of horse racing should be helped, then there is no reason at all why the sport of greyhound racing also should not be helped.

6.34 p.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: I am glad to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), and I should like to underline one or two of the arguments which he advanced. If I do not speak so vehemently, that is not because I do not support wholeheartedly the Amendment which he has moved. At the outset, I should confess that I have no personal interest in either horse racing or greyhound racing. Indeed, I have been to a horse race meeting only once in my life, many years ago, and I have been to a greyhound track only twice, about thirty years ago, in order to see how the Totalisator worked!
I do not bet on either of these two sports. My own interests are more active ones in other forms of sport. Like the hon. Member for West Ham, North, I have a greyhound track in the borough part of which I represent. As is well known, we have in Wembley an international stadium, and there is regular greyhound racing there. Thousands of people enjoy the sport, and very many of my constituents and the constituents of those who support me on this occasion regularly attend greyhound racing.
I have for some years been the chairman of the all-party group set up to concern itself with the interests of greyhound racing. For all those years, we as a committee have sought to be treated as fairly as the horse racers. Our greyhound committee has, over the years, seen successive Chancellors of the Exchequer in order to press for the abolition of the discriminatory 10 per cent. greyhound racing betting tax. The justice of our case has always been accepted: the difficulty has been one of finding the money, or forgoing the money. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, received one of our deputations, and he knows that money was the difficulty.
Again now, we ask that we should be treated fairly. We ask that the proposals in the Bill should, in equity, be applied also to greyhound racing. On this occasion, money from the Government is not the trouble. I put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary these questions: what is the trouble this time? Will it open the door to other sports? If so, which are the other sports? In moving the Second Reading of the Bill today, my right hon. Friend asked why greyhound racing should be included. Surely, all the reasons for the proposed levy on horse racing and all the arguments apply to greyhound racing. What would prevent the same machinery being used for the collection of a greyhound racing levy? Such a levy, as the hon. Member for West Ham, North pointed out, would help to provide a national stud for greyhounds and restore the position we once held as a recognised centre for greyhound breeding in the world.
My right hon. Friend has all the details in a very extensive brief which has been prepared. I hope that he will sympathetically consider the arguments. Perhaps he feels that greyhound racing is conducted altogether more efficiently than horse racing. Should there, therefore, be a premium on efficiency? Should the sport be treated unfairly because the promoters conduct the affairs of greyhound racing so well and so efficiently?
I ask that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should look again at the proposals we have made. In several capacities, my right hon. Friend is at this time and in this Session seeking to reform and bring up to date our social laws. How can he perpetuate another anomaly? He will do just this if he leaves greyhound racing out of his proposals. It is to be hoped, therefore, that in equity my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary will give these proposals their sympathetic consideration.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: I too must declare an interest in this Bill to the extent that I am a director of a racecourse, but I must also in a way declare an interest in the Amendment, to the extent that I was once the owner of a dog. This dog, unfortunately, was more efficient at fighting in going round the last bend of the course than it was


in getting its nose in front of the others. What I am trying to say is that I am interested in both these forms of sport, and my only reason for intervening for a short time in this debate is to stress the point that I believe that at the present time there is a lot of confusion in the public mind about why the money is required.
I think there has been misrepresentation, indeed deliberate misrepresentation, by certain interests as to where this money is to go. There are suggestions that it is to go into the pockets of the rich. This is quite untrue. All we are asking for is a fair contribution from those people who enjoy the benefits of racing without at present contributing to racing in any way. I refer to the off-the-course punters and bookmakers, but with the one proviso that the Totalisator in the past has made, and I hope will continue to make, a very substantial contribution to racing. The off-the-course bookmaker at present contributes absolutely nothing.
I have read in the newspapers that it has been suggested that this is really a levy on off-the-course punters. That is perfectly true, and I think it is quite fair. For example, at Birmingham fairly recently, we staged one race called the Triumph Herald Handicap, which was put on with the great assistance of the Triumph Herald Distributors' Association. The prize money was about £7,000, which included a novelty, a car for the owners of the winner, second and third. As a result of this, we had about twenty horses running, and would have had more had it not been for coughing. Nevertheless, our attendance was a mere 7,000 people.
I do not for a moment say that people are not interested in horse racing. They are, but it was those 7,000 people who attended that race, plus the Triumph Herald Distributors' Association, who made the race possible. This was an ante-post betting race, and millions of people must have placed their bets on this race but made no contribution to the actual staging of the race, the upkeep of the racecourse and so on, and therefore I feel that it is essential that these people should contribute in some way.
In the last debate in which I spoke on this subject on the recommendations of

the Peppiatt Committee, I went into great detail showing how every £ of our revenue was spent and where it went. I will not weary the House by going into these details again, but I should like to say that we must improve the amenities of our racecourses. Some hon. Members have mentioned how bad some of them are, and that is true in many cases, but I am quite convinced that it would be very unwise to try to tackle this problem in a piecemeal way by patching here and patching there. I think that there is a fine example of what is required and what is being done at present at Ascot, where the whole of the Tattersall's Stand, not the Members' Stand, was pulled down after racing stopped, and a completely new stand of modern design has been provided, with escalators to take people up and down. This is the sort of thing that we need, and which the public should have in racing in this country, but, quite clearly, very large sums of money are required if this object is to be fulfilled. I mentioned in the last debate that we in Birmingham have spent £35,000 in providing one bar, in the course enclosure which shows that money does not go very far when we come to these large projects.
There is another point which I have mentioned before and must repeat. We must have substantial reductions in the amounts charged to the public for ad mission. By comparison, we are charging two or three times the amounts charged in other countries, for example, in France. We must also provide better prize money for the owners, and I myself am particularly keen to see that travelling and training expenses are brought down. They are very high at the present time. It costs something like £1,000 a year to keep a horse in training. I do not believe that owners can go on paying this high sum for ever, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), who went into great detail on the question of breeding. It is only by making available better prize money for the owners that we shall give them the return they require and indeed deserve.

Mr. A. Lewis: I agree with the hon. Member and I am sorry that he did not develop his interest in greyhound racing. Is it not the case that it is only a question of degree, and that the principle can


be stated in exactly the same way with regard to greyhound racing? I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman said, but I had hoped that he might develop a kindly word for the dog that he once had.

Mr. Dance: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I would say that I certainly have sympathy with the greyhound racing people. I agree that they have certainly got a good case, and it may be that my right hon. Friend would consider some further legislation in future. If we could differentiate between the betting that goes on greyhound racing and that which goes on horse racing, I think something might be done, but certainly the greyhound racing people have my sympathy, and there are quite a few people in my own constituency who have greyhounds and are interested in greyhound racing.
In addition to improving the amenities, giving better prize money and reducing the admission charges to racecourses, there are other facilities which it is very important that we should develop besides those which have been mentioned. One is the question of watering courses. It may be that this is not a very appropriate moment to mention this matter, when we remember that Worcester racecourse is under water at the moment, but even Worcester can get very hard and a race can be carved up and may have only two or three horses running, which is not good for the public, the bookmakers or anybody. It is not always quite so simple to water a race course as one might think. It is not every course which has a beautiful river running beside it, and we in Birmingham are spending and will have to spend vast sums in putting down boreholes to get the water long before we hope to water the race course.
Then, there is this question of the camera patrol, which is expensive. It costs £150 a day, but, having seen it in operation and having seen a very clear picture of the last three furlongs of a race, I realise that very great assistance can be given to the stewards of a meeting in making their decision when an objection is made. I believe that it would be for the benefit of racing as a whole—the ordinary man in the street, the owners and the bookmakers—if the camera patrol could be installed at more

racecourses, although I appreciate that £150 is quite a large sum even for a comparatively prosperous racecourse such as Birmingham.
Another amenity which should be provided is better accommodation for stable lads. We in Birmingham have spent quite a considerable sum in that direction. The horse-box drivers also want somewhere to get a reasonable meal and same comfortable place in which to eat it. All these things must be considered.
I think that under Clause 1 (9) and Clause 7 (8) Members of Parliament are precluded from being on either the Horserace Betting Levy Board or the Horserace Totalisator Board. I think that this is a pity. Here I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who has done excellent work on the Totalisator Board. It would be a great pity if he were precluded from carrying on the work which he has done and if his services in the future should not be available
I am delighted that the contributions each year are not specifically laid down. Clearly the amount needed in racing will vary. For example, the money which I foresee will be spent on magnificent new stands will not again be required for that purpose and that sum will be saved I therefore welcome the flexibility which will be possible under the Bill.
There are bound to be teething troubles, but with the good will of all concerned—bookmakers, the public, the racecourse executives, and owners and trainers—I am certain that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will work well and will be generally for the benefit of racing as a whole including breeding. I therefore welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing it forward.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) has raised the question of greyhound racing in his Amendment. I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said, but I feel that it should be a matter for separate legislation. If my right hon. Friend brought such legislation forward, I would be disposed to support it. However, I cannot agree entirely with him that


both cases are strictly comparable. There is no doubt that the cost of keeping, owning and training racehorses is very different from that associated with greyhounds. In addition, the cost of running a racecourse is different from that of running a greyhound track.

Mr. A. Lewis: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the principle of my Amendment. The only difference is that the degree may vary. The method can be negotiated and discussed through the usual channels. The principle could be introduced in new legislation if not the actual amount concerned.

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Member has put what I had in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), who speaks with very great knowledge of the administrative side of racing, mentioned admission charges. In the debate on the Peppiatt Report last May, I referred to the fact that the cost of seeing the Grand Prix at Longchamp is very much lower than the cost of seeing the Derby at Epsom. I had practical experience of that last summer. I made it my business to visit one of the big courses in France and one of the smaller ones. The cost of admission to Longchamp was 9s. and to one of the provincial courses, Vichy, 6s. The stands were excellent and even at the provincial course were up to the high standard which, I admit, is set at Birmingham.
As the Bill is based on the Peppiatt Report, I do not propose to repeat the arguments which I used in the debate in May. Before saying something about the Bill, I should like to make one point in case there are some hon. Members who do not believe that there is a need for a levy to help racing and think that racing is doing quite well. I wish to draw attention to a report which appeared in the newspapers on 29th October to the effect that Mr. Bruce Hobbs, who is probably known by name to anyone connected with racing, was giving up his position as assistant trainer to Captain Boyd-Rochfort. However, he was not doing this, as one might suppose, to start training on his own.
If ever there was anyone to whom the door seemed wide open for a successful career as a trainer it was Bruce Hobbs.

He rode the winner of the Grand National at the age of 17. I have every cause to remember this because I looked after the horse which he beat by a short head into second place. After that he was a successful steeplechase jockey. He served with distinction for 4½ years in the Forces, came out as a captain and became assistant to Captain Boyd-Rochfort, who is one of the most successful and best known trainers in the world. Despite all this, Bruce Hobbs is not to set up in training on his own. The reason he gave was this:
… with stakes so small and costs so high, a man cannot be sure of a living as a trainer unless he bets and wins.
Everyone would agree that it is most undesirable that trainers should have to rely on betting in order to keep his business going. For Bruce Hobbs, that was not good enough, and he was quite right.
Those who are interested in racing are well aware of the trainer's position. He receives so much a week for each horse he trains and 10 per cent. of the stakes which his horses win. The fees which he receives are not enough to pay for the keep of the horses and, with the exception of the very few trainers who win a number of our big races, he cannot make both ends meet out of his fees and the 10 per cent. of the stakes.
I do not intend to go into the question of stablemen's wages. They are doing a difficult job and are not getting high wages by any stretch of the imagination. While the trainer cannot make both ends meet, I do not see how he can possibly pay his stablemen higher wages. It is clear, therefore, that the need to help racing is not confined to owners or even to the public. It is spread over the whole of racing, from the stable boy to the public and everyone connected with racing. The only way in which we can make racing prosperous is to reduce the costs of the people who own the horses and pay the bills. One of the ways to do that is to reduce entry fees for their horses. If that is to be made possible more customers will have to be attracted to the race courses. That can be done only by giving them better value for their money in the form of lower admission charges and better accommodation.
I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill because I believe that the levy on betting will make those things possible.


I like the Bill all the more because I think that it is right that Parliament should pass legislation to set up this machinery and then leave it to those directly concerned to operate it.
I should like to say a word about the bookmakers' contribution. Such bookmakers as I have spoken to about this have all expressed themselves as ready and willing to pay. It will be left to them, I understand, to set up the Bookmakers' Committee, which will prepare a scheme whereby they will be divided into categories and pay the levy according to the category in which they are placed.
In introducing the Bill, my right hon. Friend referred to the categories given in the Peppiatt Report and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) also referred to this. What is not clear to me is whether, in the Bill, we are adopting rigidly the categories that were set out in the Peppiatt Report. There does not seem to be any indication in the Bill of how many categories there will be or on what basis a bookmaker will be placed in his proper category.
It seems to me that the Bill will allow the Bookmakers' Committee to assess the categories of bookmakers in any way it likes, whether on the basis of their profits, on turnover or in any other way. I regard turnover as a much better basis than profits. I am sure that it is right and preferable for the bookmakers to try to work out their own scheme and to do the best they can. I believe that many of them are quite ready—the more sensible ones are certainly ready—to do the best they can and to make as good a contribution as they can, because it will prove to be very much in their interests in the long run.
The Levy Board will have a formidable task in distributing the money, even if it is not called upon to decide the scheme for the bookmakers' levy. It may have to decide how the bookmakers are to be assessed and how much they pay. It is possible that the Levy Board as a whole will not approve of the recommendations of the Bookmakers' Committee. It would then fall to the lot of the three members to be appointed by my right hon. Friend to adjudicate and to decide upon the scheme for the levy. They, too, I suppose, can assess

the bookmakers in any way they like, whether on profits, turnover, the number of telephones they use or the number of their employees. I should like to know whether the Board's approval or rejection of the bookmakers' proposals must be unanimous or by a simple majority. It is important to know this in view of the composition of the Board.
It is certain that the three members of the Board chosen by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be selected with great care. If, eventually, they have to make the decision of how much the bookmakers must pay and what sort of scheme they are to have, at least one of them should be an accountant. If the fairly frequent practice of appointing an ex-civil servant is followed, it would be wise to appoint one with experience of the Board of Inland Revenue, because they will have a lot of hard work to do in assessing the amount of the levy.
I entirely agree that the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee should be represented on the Levy Board. I have referred already to the need to attract the public to our courses in greater numbers, but the people want more than merely cheaper admission charges and better accommodation. What they want is to be certain of getting a fair deal and a fair run for their money when they get there.
Undoubtedly, there has been a good deal of uneasiness this year—my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) referred to this—about doping. I do not suggest that the practice is widespread—it is not—but it certainly exists. It is imperative that the ruling bodies who are to be represented on the Board which will get money in this way should take vigorous steps to put their house in order. I should be out of order if I attempted on Second Reading to suggest how they might do that, but to my mind it is grossly unfair that a trainer should be deprived of his livelihood if somebody succeeds in administering a drug to his horse despite all the precautions he has taken. We must have a reliable and generally acceptable way, which at the moment we do not have, of testing horses against having drugs or stimulants administered to them. It should be the responsibility of the authorities to do this. Much more vigorous action


must be taken against what I regard as the far more serious crime of doping horses to prevent them winning.
I would go further as regards the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee and say that if Parliament agrees to channel this money into racing, as it will do by the Bill, a good deal more should be made known about the financial position of the Jockey Club and its stake holders. We should be told, for example, what happens to all the fines. What happens if somebody is fined for using the wrong colours? When the new rule comes in about overnight declarations, what will happen to the money from somebody who does not run his horse? We are entitled to know these things if the money is to be given to racing.
I am not altogether happy about the suggestion that the three independent members should be judges in the event of a disagreement with the Bookmakers' Committee as well as having to do the normal day-to-day business of the Board. It might well put them into too strong a position. One reason why I have asked about how the decisions of the Levy Board are to be taken—whether by a majority or unanimously—is that if they had to be unanimous, the three independent members would be able to vote against the bookmakers' proposals and then impose one themselves under the powers given to them in Clause 3 of the Bill. I wonder whether it might not be better to consider whether disagreements between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee should be referred for decisions to a separate tribunal set up somewhat on the lines of the various appeal tribunals which are referred to in Clause 4.
As to the Totalisator Board, the Levy Board is taking over many of the old powers of the Racecourse Betting Control Board and it will now be solely concerned, I understand, with the operation of the totalisators. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that one of the reasons on which the appointment of members of the Board should be based was business ability. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should do his utmost to get people with practical and expert knowledge of the operation of Totalisators. People who have been

abroad and done a lot of racing in countries where the Totalisator is the only form of betting have told me that we have a lot to learn. There are many new and up-to-date ideas in Totalisator engineering which the new Board should introduced. Many of us who have seen the tote at work in other countries feel that we are not getting anything like as much out of it as we should.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rejected the suggestion that as the donors will be represented on the Levy Board, the recipients should equally be represented. I am not convinced one way or the other. The suggestion has, however, been made and it is worth further consideration whether the recipients should not be represented by a nominee of the Racehorse Owners Association, the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association and the Racecourse Association.
I imagine that the bookmakers would object strongly to that if the decision of the Board had to be taken by a simple majority, because they would feel that those three and the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee would all vote against them. They would dislike it much less if there were an independent body to decide in the event of dispute between the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board. If there were such an independent body, they would not be able to object on the ground that people would gang up against them. If those three representatives were included, expert knowledge would undoubtedly be available to help the Levy Board in carrying out the requirements laid down in Clause 1.
I have occupied the House for an unduly long time, but this is a matter in which I am particularly interested. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider some of the suggestions which have been put to him today from all sides of the House. I congratulate him upon producing the Bill. I believe that I speak for all those millions of people, in all walks of life, who enjoy a day's racing in thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has done in bringing forward the Bill, which will give great help to the sport in which we are interested.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: The Bill to which we are being


invited to give a Second Reading today is the logical outcome of the Batting and Gaming Bill, made into an Act in the last Session of Parliament.
I remember saying at the time that there would not have been the enthusiasm for the latter Bill, with its registration of bookmakers and so on, had it not been for the fact that it was hoped that, as a result of the regisration of bookmakers, we should be able to secure a sum of money for the benefit of racing. That is why there was enthusiasm for that Measure, and why there is still enthusiasm, which I am glad that the Home Secretary pointed out, shared by all those interested in horse racing, not only the racecourse owners and breeders but the bookmakers as well. There is a genuine desire by all of them to devise some method of helping racing.
The Home Secretary set up the Peppiatt Committee whose duty it was to inquire into two things—whether it was desirable and necessary for racing to be assisted in this way, and, if so, how it should be done. The Peppiatt Committee came to the conclusion that it was desirable to assist the business of horse racing and that about the right figure of assistance that ought to be given to the industry was £1¼ million.
I invite my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we have had the benefit of a speech this afternoon from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to whom many tributes have been paid from both sides of the House as being one of the best-informed upon matters of horse racing generally. The hon. Member for Dudley made it clear—I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear this in mind—that one of the problems with which the horse-racing industry will be faced in the very near future is an embarrassment of riches. It will get not only an increased amount of money as a result of the alteration in the taxation system from the former Racecourse Betting Control Board, but also a sum of money not yet defined under the terms of the Bill.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear very clearly in mind that the Peppiatt Committee has laid it down in no uncertain terms that £1¼ million is now the right figure. As against that there are hon. Members of this House,

and certainly members of the Jockey Club, who have mentioned figures far higher. They have talked of £3 million as the kind of figure that ought to be borne in mind. When we look at the composition of the Board which my right hon. Friend is setting up, we find that two members are to be appointed by the Jockey Club, and one member by the National Hunt Committee. I should not have thought it unreasonable to expect that they would share the same view expressed by other members of the Jockey Club, that the figure arrived at by an independent body, the Peppiatt Committee, was not the figure that they had in mind.
My right hon. Friend ought to bear in mind and write into this Bill some kind of maximum figure beyond which this outside body, not responsible to Parliament, should not go. We have heard a lot in this House about the evils of delegated legislation. I should have thought that the same arguments could be advanced about the evils of delegated taxation. Why on earth should this House pass to some outside body the responsibility for levying what amounts to taxation without any indication of the amount that that body may raise by this form of taxation nor any indication of the limits to which this taxation may go?
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) advanced the cogent argument that there ought to be a levy not only on horse racing but on dog racing to bring about a certain amount of equity because dog racing is subject to a 10 per cent. tax. He could go further. It could be argued that football betting is subject to a 30 per cent. tax, and there is a duty on the Totalisator but not on the fixed-odds bookmaker. We shall have a succession of people, unless there is some control over this by the Home Secretary, who will all be able to make their claims, and suggest that they should have more money for football pitches, for greyhound tracks and amenities of various kinds. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that we should consider whether or not a maximum figure should be inserted in the Bill beyond which this independent outside body should not go in levying taxation on Her Majesty's citizens—and bookmakers are Her Majesty's citizens—and


should bear in mind that the amount of money that horse racing should receive, estimated by the Peppiatt Committee as £1¼ million, is a figure that ought to go down and not go up.
If this £1¼ million to be received in the first year of operation is properly used and applied to improved stands and to reduced admission charges, one would expect an increase in the number of people participating in horse racing, and by that increased revenue would be provided for some of the amenities without a levy of £1¼ million each year. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take particular notice of this and consider whether there ought to be written into the Bill a maximum limit beyond which no outside body should levy taxation on Her Majesty's subjects.
I should like to ask him this question. Most Members of this House have stressed the importance of the rôle that will be played by the chairman and the two nominees of the Home Secretary who are to serve upon this committee, and who, in the event of disagreement, are to be the final arbiters as to what is to be done. I should like to have a specific assurance from the Under Secretary that the nominees who will be appointed by the Home Secretary will in fact be truly independent members; that we shall not have members associated with horse racing in some other form or people who have a financial interest in racing, because there is no safeguard whatever if the people nominated by him are not in fact 100 per cent. independent members having no connection with racing. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give me that specific assurance.
The other thing I would draw to my right hon. Friend's attention is the constitution of the Board as it is set out in Clause 1. One member only shall represent the bookmakers. And that member shall be the Bookmakers' Committee's chairman for the time being. I would have hoped that as it is to be the duty of the Bookmakers' Committee to raise this considerable sum of money from among its members, they might have been entitled to greater representation than one, but if my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to agree to that I hope that he will not think it unreason-

able if I suggest to him that the chairman or his deputy should be able to attend that body so that they should at least have a voice and be present in the consideration of matters which concern them.
I was delighted to hear that in his speech my right hon. Friend dealt with the question of taxation. I think it a very important point that the taxation question should be dealt with by the recipients of the money and not by the fund itself.
I would draw my right hon. Friend's attention to another point which, I think, is of substance, and that is that it really is not good enough that a scheme for levying taxation upon bookmakers shall be approved by this Board, a chairman and two independent members and a few other people, as my right hon. Friend sets out in the Bill. I think that this question of the raising of this sum of money, and the scheme for the assessment of the levy, should be approved by the Home Secretary as well. I should like to retain some semblance of Parliamentary responsibility for what is being done. I really do not think it is good enough for Parliament to wash its hands of it by saying, "Horse racing needs money; the bookmakers have got it; set up a committee; let it decide how much to raise; let it decide the ways the money is spent." I really do not think it is good enough to write that into the Bill without laying down that the Home Secretary should have the opportunity of supervising the way in which the money is spent when it has been raised. I think that he should have a say about this and have to give approval to the way it is raised. I do not think that Parliament should abrogate its responsibilities in this way.
I have kept my remarks brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak and I know that it is hoped to conclude the debate at a not unreasonable hour, but I have tried to emphasise one or two points which, I hope, will be of value to the House, for I think that the essential thing is that Parliament should not depart from its responsibilities. It should write into the Bill a maximum sum beyond which taxation shall not be levied, and it should retain the principle of Parliamentary control through the exercise by the Home Secretary of some supervision over the activities of this body which it is proposed to


set up under the Bill. Subject to those provisos I, with every other Member of the House, I think, give this Bill good will, but good will will not persist unless some alteration of a substantial nature is made to the Bill in Committee.

7.22 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) because I rather disagree with him. It seems to me that in a Bill of this kind it would be a great mistake to write in a maximum figure. There are so many unknown imponderable things in the Bill. We do not know in the very least how it will work out; we do not know whether perhaps greater amenities or lower entrance fees at courses will attract a greater public; we do not know the size of the amount of the money to be raised at all; we do not know whether it will increase or diminish. For that reason I think that the Home Secretary should leave it very flexible indeed. After all, he has very great powers in the three men whom he appoints, and he has subsequent powers himself, so that I really do not think there is need for so much fear in this matter as my hon. Friend has suggested.
Perhaps I ought to declare a small interest in horse breeding, as I have bred horses for a great number of years. I used when younger and lighter and had more puff to do a little steeplechasing, but those are days of very long ago. From the betting point of view I am not in the slightest interested in horse racing. Literally, I have not had a bet for the last thirty-five years. I found it much too easy to lose money in those days, and I have not taken it up since. However, I am greatly attracted to horses and horse breeding, and occasionally have a steeplechaser in training, and that is the limit of my interest and experience.
The hon. Member far Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said that many of us occasionally went to race meetings, not because of their snob value but because we thoroughly enjoyed them, and he mentioned the fact that it was not pleasant at Lingfield on Saturday. However, I can assure him that it was infinitely less pleasant in the downpour on the Manchester course on Saturday.
I should like to add a word to what my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) said about encouraging small race courses. We know that many other countries have great concentrations of racing, and it probably suits them to do so. We may concentrate a certain amount of racing, but it would, I believe, be deplorable if we did away with the small country meetings, especially the small jumping meetings, which, perhaps, hold only two or three meetings a year; it may be, perhaps, a couple of days in the spring and one in the autumn. These are part of English country life. They are not expensive to run. They give an enormous amount of local pleasure, and I should like to see them helped in a reasonable sort of way. They do not require tremendous prizes, nor great amenities, but they do need some help, and I hope that they will not be lost sight of.
It seems to me that one of the greatest difficulties which this Levy Board will have in disposing of the money will be how best to spend it. There are so many ways in which it could be usefully disbursed. I suppose the greatest ways in which it would help would be by improving race course amenities, in their widest sense, increasing prize money, and, perhaps, helping to lower entrance charges. That is a matter which it will have to sort out, and I suggest that it will have to go into this to begin with with a very open mind, because it is very difficult to tell how much difference in the situation may be made by better amenities, more comfort and so on; alternatively, how much it will help thoroughbred breeding as a whole when bigger prizes are offered. The prizes given in this country at the present time I believe deplorable compared with those awarded in many other countries.
I am very glad to have spoken shortly after my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), who is a great authority on racing and a very near neighbour of mine. He apparently had considerable doubt as to the composition of the Levy Board. I think he said he had an open mind, but he thought it might be a good thing if the thoroughbred breeders' interests and other interests were represented on the Levy Board. Personally, I am glad the Home Secretary has taken the view he


has in keeping this Board very small. I think he is much more likely to have satisfactory results with a small, fairly knowledgeable Board, which can more or less take evidence as to the requirements of racing in the different spheres. I feel that will have much happier and better results than a larger board, and if we were to increase the size of the Board I suggest it would have to be very much larger—at least double the number.

Mr. E. Johnson: I admittedly said three extra members might be wanted. What I meant to say and forgot was that the Home Secretary might appoint only the chairman and drop off the other two independents. That would keep it down.

Sir J. Barlow: Yes, that is true, but I feel that the present proposals of the Home Secretary are likely to work pretty well.
Perhaps it is not so well known that the Racecourse Totalisator Charity Trust contributes a good deal of money to other bodies than thoroughbred breeders directly to help horse breeding in this country. For example, last year it gave £4,000 to the Olympic Games and International Equestrian Fund. That helps horse breeding in this country indirectly, and adds to the prestige of British jumpers, and I feel that it is a very worthy object.
In the same way several of the pony societies in this country are supported by the Trust. We know that there is an increasing demand from America and other countries for Welsh and other ponies and it is of considerable value that these societies should receive some help. Another substantial contribution is made to the Hunter Improvement Society, though in this case I am a little critical because that Society's policy for a great many years has been to use thoroughbred stallions for travelling the country ostensibly to breed hunters.
It was the right policy many years ago when there was a large number of farm mares and clean-legged mares about that would breed good hunters, but the Society's policy should have been changed. That has not happened. It is useless in most cases to send thoroughbred stallions round the country to cover mares which are much too light to be expected to breed a reasonable medium

or heavyweight hunter. I hope for this reason that when the Levy Board makes contributions it will check up periodically with the different societies to which it is making payments and find out whether they are using the funds wisely.
Racing in this country is a tremendously valuable national asset. We should like to see an encouragement of middle and long-distance horses. This is of great importance, but another side of racing which has not been mentioned today is the encouragement of overseas visitors. We all know that a large number of people from overseas come here for the Derby, for Ascot, the Grand National and other great meetings. These meetings form part and parcel of the great entertainment which can be found in this country in the summer. Unless these meetings retain the prestige which they have enjoyed in the past, many wealthy visitors who come and spend large sums of money here will tend to pass us by and go to other countries where they can find better value. I commend the Bill. I hope that it will be passed.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I should like to add my commendations of the Bill and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on its introduction. I was most interested to hear the contribution to the debate by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and his comments on greyhound racing. I share his interest in that sport. I possess a whippet and I have been to several greyhound tracks in the London vicinity with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden). I have had several enjoyable evenings with my hon. Friend, but I never noticed, as was described by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, that there is such a big difference between the standard of person who attends horse racing and the person who attends greyhound racing. I have never been enveloped in such a cloud of cigar smoke as I was on the evenings when I accompanied my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch to a greyhound racing track.

Mr. A. Lewis: That is just the point. The reference to cigar smoke is very relevant. The position now is that a man who smokes Woodbines pays 10 per


cent. tax and a man who smokes cigars pays no tax at all. When a man goes to a greyhound racing track he puts his bet on the Tote and pays 10 per cent. tax, but when a man bets on a similar tote on the horse racing track he pays no tax. I submit that both should be treated alike.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I said that I had been with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch to dog racing meetings and that on each occasion I have been enveloped in a cloud of rich Havana cigar smoke the like of which I have never seen at any horse racing track I have visited. I fully support the principle that the hon. Member for West Ham, North advocates. My objection is that he should seek to tack it on to this Bill and, if possible, have the House decline to proceed with the Bill. I entirely support the hon. Member's interest in dog racing, but I believe that it is not the time or place to introduce it in connection with a Bill dealing with horse racing.
Last week I was fortunate enough to spend a few hours at the Newmarket sales. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) made some obscure remarks about the exports of British bloodstock. He implied that if we helped the British horseracing industry by means of the Bill there was the possibility that bloodstock breeders would not have to export to the same extent as they are doing now and, therefore, that it might not be a good thing to help them. I think that the Government's intention is to fry to increase the export of British bloodstock all over the world and at the same time not denude our own stock and make our own position relatively weaker.
On 23rd May this year, in the debate on the Peppiatt Committee's Report, a statement was made to which not enough attention has been paid. It was said from this side of the House that, in the last 15 years, of the top ten horses each year in the United States, making a total of 150 over that period, no fewer than 55 were British horses. It is recognised generally that our bloodstock breeding industry has been the fountain from which many of the major horse racing countries have drawn. Last week at the Newmarket sales nearly 50 per cent. of

the £1½ million worth of horses sold were exported. A total of £708,000 was paid by various buying agencies and 90 per cent. of that total was for export.
Not only is the racing industry an earner of foreign currency but it is an attraction for foreign tourists. We have in the Epsom Derby a race which possesses a glamour that no other race in the world possesses. It has possessed this glamour for one hundred years and more, but this is about the only unique thing that it possesses compared with many other top-class races in other countries. The Epsom Derby is a race worth a considerable amount of money, but in no way does the prize money compare with that for the Kentucky Derby or for the principal races in France. In no way does the comfort of patrons at Epsom compare with that in Paris and at many race tracks in America.
I have had a little experience of race tracks in France and America. At Hialeah Park in Florida in 1955 I was not only provided at a modest charge with a reserved seat in covered accommodation but with detailed statistical information, supplied electronically, about every horse running to help me make my selection, and in between races, on two lakes built in the centre of the racecourse, I was treated to aquatic displays by groups of bathing beauties on water skis. In between, pink flamingoes swam from island to island. I am not suggesting that we should do that at Hurst Park, Doncaster or even Leicester, but we must improve the facilities of our courses.
One further reason why I welcome the Bill is that if we can improve the financial standing of our racing industry there is a very good chance that we can not only improve the accommodation from which our patrons watch but reduce admission charges to the public.
Clause 1 (1, c), refers to the improvement of horse racing. This includes the provision of modern stands, drainage, watering, photofinish equipment, race control cameras and so on. As has already been said, this will mean help to improve accommodation for stable lads, and we must not forget jockeys' changing rooms, of which I have visited a number and have found some of the conditions there absolutely archaic.
Clause 1 (1, a) refers to the improvement of breeds of horses. I should like to see some of the money put to this use channelled into the purchase at some stage of a particularly famous race horse which we may produce here in a year or two's time for use by the National Stud as a stallion. In the National Stud, we have a very fine establishment owned by the nation. I hope it would not be impossible far my right hon. Friend to make same arrangement whereby money raised by the Bill could in part be used to buy any stallion, which may be considered from time to time essential if British bloodstock breeding is to maintain the prominent position it now enjoys.
Clause 1 (1, b) refers to the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education. At Newmarket the Equine Research Station has been in existence for a number of years, and it is doing very valuable work. That is an effort which is carried on at the moment largely through the generosity of individuals. For instance, at the sales which have just concluded several individuals owning good stallions decided, out of the generosity of their hearts, to donate a nomination to their stallions for 1961 to be auctioned for the benefit of the Equine Research Station. If the industry is to remain up-to-date, if bloodstock raising in this country is to flourish and if veterinary science insofar as it relates to horse breeding and bloodstock is to continue to advance it is not good enough to rely on voluntary contributions of this nature.
As to the composition of the Levy Board, I think it would be only fair for two bookmakers' representatives to be included. At the moment it is proposed to have a chairman and seven other members, including one from the Bookmakers' Committee. After all, the bookmakers will be paying by far the biggest proportion towards maintaining the British racing industry, and it will be only reasonable that they should have two members. The Bill is silent about the amount and the method. I should like to see at least £1½ million annually provided to begin with, and I should like to see the method of assessment as originally envisaged by the Peppiatt Committee in respect of bookies' profits.
Finally, I support the Bill because it provides an ideal opportunity of bringing forward useful, beneficial legislation which is painless. It requires no contribution whatever from the taxpayers. Those who enjoy a flutter on or off the course will support the industry in which they find their enjoyment. The real reason why racing conditions in the United States and France are superior in many ways to those in this country is that all betting there is channelled through the Tote—there are no bookies—and the Tote takes a fair proportion of the money laid in bets to support the racing industry.
I should be the last person to wish to see the bookie disappear from the English racing scene, for he is part of it, and the scene would not be complete without him. But I feel that if the bookie is to continue to enjoy the predominant position which he now enjoys in our racing, he must be prepared to pay his fair share of the cost of its upkeep.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: It is obvious that I have not been fortunate enough to go to the same attractive tracks as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I have never been fortunate enough to see Bathing Beauty out of Swimming Pool, although I have no doubt that that filly is a very desirable sight.
I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for mentioning certain hospitality at greyhound tracks and the cigar smoke which he found so attractive. I can assure him that, in the interests of my own education, I shall be only too happy to accompany him at his invitation to some track of his choice, which I have no doubt will be just as delightful.
The Amendment, which carries my name, is a splendid one. However I hope that the House will not vote for it, because obviously the Bill would be lost. I should be the very last person to want to see that happen, but sometimes one has to do a certain amount of circumvention in order to present a case which is, perhaps, not wholly unacceptable to the Home Secretary.
We often hear the phrase "the sport of kings" in connection with horse racing. I think that too many people are living in the past and thinking of


greyhound racing as "the sport of knaves" That is certainly not so. It has become a great industry. There are many great greyhound racing stadiums, and there is little or no doubt that it is a sport which has great security. Indeed, it would almost seem that the security of the greyhound racing world is now greater than that of the horse-racing world. Nevertheless, I am certain that both sports endeavour to achieve a security which will make members of the public who visit these great sporting tracks feel that they are getting a safe and fair run for their money.
I well remember in days gone by visiting the White City with great consistency. With the hope that a young man very often has, I used to have a few modest shillings on a greyhound which rejoiced in the name of Nil Desperandum. The animal never gave up, but it taught me a severe lesson and I did in due course—chiefly because it was a hurdler and used to jump the hurdles in the manner of a kangaroo instead of a greyhound.
My right hon. Friend seemed to make the point that the great greyhound racing stadiums in London and elsewhere were not really in need of money, because they were so comfortable and beautiful. I would ask him to investigate the position a little further. In some parts of the provinces there are tracks which are desperately trying to make a living and build themselves up and which are not, for financial reasons, offering to the public the facilities which they would like to offer and which would make the public support them even more.
I am conscious that tonight probably everyone is hoping that the House will rise fairly early. If I continued to speak to my brief, I could inform the House of many reasons for my view that greyhound racing should at least be fairly treated. It should have the same treatment as horse racing. I do not propose to do so. All I propose to say is that I sincerely hope that, in addition to my right hon. Friend saying, as I am sure that he will, that he cannot at this stage do very much for greyhound racing, he will promise to look deeply and sincerely into the possibility of legislation being introduced to give greyhound racing comparable facilities with horse racing, but perhaps on a slightly different basis.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Peart: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden), like my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus), when discussing a Bill dealing specifically with horse racing, sought to press an Amendment to include greyhound racing. I did not have the advantage of hearing all his speech but I am told that my hon. Friend argued the case very vigorously and cogently. I am in sympathy with his point of view. I obviously accept that any reforms to be applied to horse racing should be applied also to greyhound racing.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Motor racing also?

Mr. Peart: I am thinking of betting sports. I should have thought that that was obvious. I should like there to be a Peppiatt Committee on greyhound racing. I hope that my hon. Friend's campaign will achieve success in that direction.
Some hon. Members have declared their interest—for instance, as breeders, racehorse owners, and ordinary punters. I must declare my interest. I am a Privy Council representative—a layman—of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I am interested in the purposes of the Bill. I am a lover of horse racing, in the sense that I like to go to race meetings and I enjoy a day at Epsom as much as anyone in the House. Strange to say, I much prefer another form of animal racing, namely, hound trailing in my own constituency. A day at a hound trail meeting, where we watch hound dogs running down a Lakeland Fell, and the associated friendly throng of bookmakers and farmers, is much more exciting than even a day at Epsom. However, I enjoy attending race meetings and I hope that we shall ensure that this great industry and sport, which is beloved by all sections of the community, prospers.
It is in that spirit that I approach the Bill. I agree with the viewpoint which was so well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who argued not only as an expert, but as one who loves racing and its whole atmosphere. I in no way


oppose the Bill. I hope that the recommendations in it will work and that the legislation will be successful.
However, I want to pinpoint some of the criticisms which have been expressed. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) made a very valid point. He said—I agree with him—that the House should have control of taxation. Whether we call it a levy or a tax, it is taxation. The House of Commons must control it. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine this matter carefully, not only after Second Reading, but in Committee and on Report and Third Reading. It is a very important question for those who are to provide the levy. Let us not be mealy-mouthed about it. The people who are to provide the levy are the bookmakers.

Mr. A. Lewis: The punters.

Mr. Peart: That is a very academic point. Let us be honest. The people who will provide the money will be bookmakers. Punters, like myself and others, subscribe money, but we do it fairly and openly. If a bookmaker receives money successfully, that is his business. My point is that he provides the levy. Whether we like it or not, the people who will provide the money will not be breeders of horses or trainers. It will not necessarily be representatives of the Jockey Club or other organisations who will pay. It will be bookmakers, whether they be rich bookmakers in the higher category which has been mentioned or bookmakers in the lower category.
Therefore, the bookmaker is concerned that there should be a limit. This was one of the arguments raised by the Peppiatt Committee, and part of its Report deals with this. Certain people interested in horse racing, particularly from the point of view of the Jockey Club, suggested that the levy should be about £3 million. The Peppiatt Committee recommended a lower figure. If we weight the Committee a certain way through certain representatives, the figure regarded as reasonable and realistic by the Peppiatt Committee may well be substantially raised. Then those people who provide the levy will be placed in a position in which they have no control.
The hon. Member for Southend, East made the important point, which was reinforced by the views and arguments of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), that there should be more Parliamentary control and that the Secretary of State should have some control also over how the levy should be used. Any scheme which may be proposed by the new Board should be subject, above all, to the Secretary of State's scrutiny and, in the end, his approval.
We merely argue that there should be Parliamentary control. That was the main point made by my right hon. Friend. We are anxious to establish Parliamentary control over taxation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley misunderstood my right hon. Friend's argument. My right hon. Friend was merely seeking to establish Parliamentary control over this form of taxation and over its use.
Another point which was mentioned by the Secretary of State and by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) was the argument about hypothecated taxation. I disagree with that viewpoint. It is reasonable and proper that the Bill should specify for what purposes money or resources, whether from a tax or from a levy should be used. Clause 1 (1) states three specific purposes:

(a) the improvement of breeds of horses;
(b) the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education;
(c) the improvement of horse racing.

That is reasonable. We are here dealing with a specific levy affecting a section of the industry, and are merely saying, as a Parliament, that the resources which will be contributed by that section shall be used for specific purposes. I hope that there will be Parliamentary control in this question. Even though there is no specific mention of the Secretary of State's having detailed supervision of the scheme, at least we know that the Levy Board will produce an annual report. I hope that this will be submitted to the House by the Secretary of State and that we shall be able to cross-examine Ministers upon it. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked how fax we had Parliamentary control and to what extent we could debate the matter and check the purposes of the Bill in order to see whether the resources were being used properly, so


fulfilling the spirit of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reply to that point.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend has suggested that I misunderstood what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said. I do not think I did. If my hon. Friend will read paragraph 22 of the Peppiatt Committee's Report, he will find that although it points out that there is no exact analogy, it gives examples of other industries in which levies are raised. In this case the Home Secretary is instituting the levy and is leaving the industry to run its own show.
As to control, the Home Secretary has it in two ways. First, he achieves control through the Board's chairman and independent members. It may be that my hon. Friend has forgotten Clause 2 (1) which says:
The Levy Board shall have power … with the approval of, and subject to any conditions imposed by, the Secretary of State …
That is the second control.

Mr. Peart: I have read Paragraph 22; indeed, I noted it when I looked again through the Report to prepare my brief. On the other hand, it may be that there are bad precedents. Although I know that precedents have been established in connection with the agricultural marketing scheme and the levy on cinema takings for the benefit of film production, they are not necessarily justified. I still say that in his speech my right hon. Friend emphasised the importance of having Parliamentary control over the raising of revenue. That was the view put forward by the hon. Member for Southend, East.

Mr. McAdden: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is right in saying that there is a measure of Parliamentary control over the distribution of this money, in that it has to be reported to the Home Secretary. But there is no control over how much shall be raised, or how it shall be raised.

Mr. Peart: That is the point I made earlier. There is a danger that too much money will be extracted from a section of the industry, and that the views of certain interests on the Board will prevail to the detriment of other sections. That would be bad for the Board and for the industry. Therefore, the view

put forward by the hon. Member for Southend, East ought to be considered.

Mr. Wigg: It may be that I am stupid. What principle is my hon. Friend seeking to establish? It is not for me to defend the Home Secretary, but I submit that he is doing two things. First, he is establishing control, and secondly, he is conceding the maximum amount of freedom. To that extent he carries me with him, because his argument is based on the analogies mentioned in paragraph 22 of the Peppiatt Report, whereas it seems to me that my hon. Friend is arguing that there must be no taxation without complete control by the Executive.

Mr. Peart: By Parliament.

Mr. Wigg: By Parliament. In practice that means the Executive. I should have thought that that was a tenable point of view but that it was associated more with Gladstone and Liberalism.

Mr. Peart: I do not want to pursue this point too far. I accept the principle of Parliamentary control but I think that the Executive should be controlled by this House, and that there should be a check on it.
In regard to other points, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. I accept his view about the amenities of race courses, namely, that we do not necessarily wish to have the type of racecourse that we see on the Continent or in the United States of America. The great charm of our racecourses lies in their variety. Some hon. Members have argued that certain courses should be closed down, but I hope that we shall not close any. I like the small racecourses in our rural areas and the small point-to-point meetings that are held there. They add charm to our life, and form an integral part of it.
I hope that we shall not look upon horse racing with the idea merely of creating a central, official organisation which establishes super-luxury race tracks in great cities. I like the charm of the countryside and the small meetings which are run alongside the larger ones at such places as Epsom. Nevertheless, we must remember that many of our race courses—Birmingham and Wolverhampton have been referred to in this connection—provide not only a place to hold race meetings but also facilities


for sports and recreation. That is admirable, and is obviously the approach to be desired.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) spoke as an owner, a breeder, and a member of the Jockey Club, and he obviously has a very important position in racing. My hon. Friend argued that the Jockey Club does not give leadership. The Bill will give the Jockey Club representation by two members on the Levy Board, which is twice the number of bookmakers' representatives. Perhaps the Home Secretary ought to consider this matter again. If my hon. Friend is correct, and the Jockey Club is lethargic and has no positive contribution to make, why should it have an undue representation on a body which ought to provide leadership in the industry? That is why we argue for a Levy Board. One hon. Member said that the Board will provide leadership and that it will occupy a most important place in horse racing. It will be concerned with amenities, admission charges, breeding, bloodstock, veterinary education and veterinary science. It will be a key body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said that he could not be certain whether the Bill could be altered for the better. I could certainly alter it in such a way as to improve it. I hope that my right hon. Friend and my other colleagues will be able to improve the constitution of the Board when it is discussed in detail in Committee. In my opinion the constitution is overweighted. I take the view that if one purpose of the Bill is to improve veterinary education and veterinary science there ought to be a Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, or a representative of the veterinary profession—perhaps a member of the B.V.A.—on the Board. Why should we not reduce the Jockey Club representation? Would not that be far better, instead of having—

Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Member is getting away from the point. I discussed this matter myself. The idea of having representatives of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee—whatever may have been said by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—is that they are the rulers of racing. Unless we alter the whole racing procedure, they must be the people to do

the distribution. Such people as representatives of the veterinary colleges and race courses can come before the Board and explain what money they want, but they must leave it to the ruling bodies of racing to distribute the money.

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept what the hon. Member says. He will remember that the Peppiatt Committee did not recommend what is in the Bill. It recommended a central board with a chairman and one representative from the Jockey Club, one from the National Hunt Committee and one from the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board. They would advise the central board. There was also to be one from the Totalisator Board.
This Bill goes further and gives increased representation to the Jockey Club, and I cannot understand why. It is not for the hon. Member for North Fylde to make out the case for the Jockey Club. He is a partisan and naturally he is biased. He is a member of the Jockey Club. That is an honourable organisation and I am not denigrating it. I am merely arguing that the Jockey Club, on the recommendation of the Peppiatt Committee—an important Committee—was to have only one representative. The Government are saying that they do not accept what the Peppiatt Committee recommended and that they propose to give increased representation only to the Jockey Club.
The Secretary of State has not produced an argument for this increased representation, and I think it may well prove to be a bad thing. I feel that the Jockey Club would be quite happy with one representative. After all, there are other interests apart from the Jockey Club, although it may be one of the supreme bodies in racing. Why not increase the bookmakers' representation because they provide the levy?

Mr. A. Lewis: Or have one for the punters?

Mr. Peart: That is why I want Parliament to exercise a check. Technically, as Members of Parliament, we represent the community, including the punters, and that is why we wish to have a check on the Levy Board.
I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter. After all, if there were one representative from the Jockey Club


there could be another representative or increased representation for other organisations on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Southend, East There could be a representative from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons or, if necessary, and independent member. These are the people concerned with the main purposes of the Bill, the improvement of veterinary education and veterinary science. The hon. Member for North Fylde remarked on the lamentable state of veterinary services available to horse breeders. He referred particularly to the lack of X-ray facilities. That may be an argument for having on the Board a representative of the veterinary science who could see to it that some of the money is used specifically for veterinary education and research.
I have here some figures provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley showing the amounts given by the Trustees of the Racecourse Totalisator Charity Trust since 31st August, 1959. There are details of how much money has already been taken out of racing and given to veterinary education. The total figure is £20,700. I do not regard that as sufficient. It is divided up here for the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and education. The Equine Research Station of the Animal Health Trust received £20,000; the Craft of Farriery received £300, and the University of Cambridge Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies had £400. Those amounts are inadequate. I hope that when this Bill becomes law and the levy is exercised much more money will be devoted to veterinary education and research which will have an effect on breeding, on the position of our bloodstock and on racing in general.
I have here a communication from the British Veterinary Association giving details, with which I will not weary the House, of what is needed in relation to veterinary education and research. It is accepted that more money is required in many branches of veterinary science dealing specifically with the horse. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) emphasised that. It is not sufficient to give money for veterinary education and science; it must be specifically related to solving the problems of horse breeders, and for

equine research. This is something which should have careful consideration because, originally, when money was farmed out to veterinary establishments—the proceeds from the Totalisator Charity Trust, etc.—most of it was given for veterinary education generally. I want money to be farmed out specifically for veterinary research concerned with the horse and problems arising therefrom. I have a list of the things urgently required and how we need more scholarships and fellowships for investigation into veterinary problems concerning the horse. They have been outlined by the British Veterinary Association. We wish to see money which the Levy Board collects used properly and for specific research which is important.
I welcome the Bill. Its purposes are admirable. I think the Peppiatt Committee did a good job, and I am glad that the Home Secretary complimented the Committee on its alacrity. It took evidence from a number of witnesses, including representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the National Stud, the Animal Health Trust, the British Veterinary Association and the Racecourse Betting Control Board. Even my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North hopes that there will be a Peppiatt Committee for the greyhound racing industry. The four main questions which it set out to answer—was a levy desirable, could a practical scheme be devised, how should the amount of the levy be computed and how could the levy be assessed and collected—were answered satisfactorily. Today we have been considering how far this Bill fulfils the main principles of the Peppiatt Report, and how far we can give Parliamentary sanction.
I am satisfied that the Bill is a desirable Measure and that the State should intervene. Although we are not having a State subsidy we are creating conditions whereby the industry, with proper safeguards, can provide resources to improve horse racing and for the purposes specifically mentioned in the Act.
Today we have had no real opposition to the Bill. I should have thought that some hon. Members, because they are opposed to gambling, would have opposed this Bill on principle. I am


very pleased we have not had that. Most of us in this House this evening believe that horse racing, in the words of the Peppiatt Report, is part of our British way of life. It is a source of recreation. We all have a great interest in it and that interest is growing.
Not only the thousands who have a small flutter, and attend race meetings, but those who watch racing on television on a Saturday afternoon find that horse racing provides great enjoyment. We merely wish to have proper standards for those in the industry and for those who bet. I was glad that many hon. Members mentioned security. All this costs money. We need more amenities, they are important from the point of view of the ordinary person who, like myself, attend race meetings now and then for enjoyment.
Let us not be smug about the bookmaker. I know that some people regard them as outcasts and pariahs. I believe they perform a useful service in the industry. Although many hon. Members emphasised that bookmakers may not have opposed the Bill because inevitably they would have to expect a levy, most of those I have met in my constituency and elsewhere are hardworking men who wish the industry well. Some may be successful and some not always successful, but they make a major contribution to the industry. Therefore, their views should be considered. That is why in Committee, when we discuss the composition of the Bookmakers' Committee, the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields about how far we can control the composition of that Committee should be carefully considered.
If it will improve horse racing, this Bill deserves our support. Horse racing is rooted in history; I need not elaborate on that. It is part of our life. Tonight we have argued about the levy and we shall argue about details in Committee, but we on this side of the House do not oppose the Bill itself. We hope it will succeed. I hope the Minister will consider carefully some of the detailed points raised by my hon. Friends. In Committee we shall certainly seek to improve the Bill by making constructive Amendments.

8.22 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is grateful for the measure of support which the Bill has received in this Second Reading debate. I think it true to say that the only important cleavage of opinion has been on the amount of Parliamentary control there should be over the various schemes in the Bill. I should point out that a degree of Ministerial responsibility is already written into the Bill. The Secretary of State will appoint the chairman and two independent members of the Levy Board and also members of the new Tote Board.
As previously, under the Racecourse Betting Control Board, the Secretary of State will have to approve schemes for distribution of money obtained from the levy and to lay reports before Parliament. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who quite rightly said that there has been no real opposition to the Bill, and by his right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) that we should have a much tighter form of Parliamentary control over the various things envisaged by the Bill. That is a matter which we shall have to consider at a later stage.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), we must be very careful not to fall into the trap of making the control so tight that we deprive the industry, to which this great opportunity for improving its affairs is given, of that freedom to take advantage of the greater opportunities provided, and of the greater rationalisation—if I may put it that way—of the bookmakers' business, which may very well lead to increased prosperity of certain sections at least of the bookmakers' business. It would be a pity if we were to frustrate those new opportunities by having too tight a control.
As the Home Secretary said, the object of the Bill is to enable the industry to help itself. I ask all those hon. Members who, with the best intention, have put forward various suggestions for improving the detail and tightening the control to bear that in mind. I must confess, having lived with this subject for several years, that it was very gratifying to hear the right hon. Member for


Smethwick say that there were cogent arguments of logic and equity for supporting the Bill. It was also gratifying to hear the hon. Member for Dudley, who speaks with such great knowledge of the matters we have been discussing today, describe it as a triumph for the English virtues of reason and compromise.
I feel sure I speak for my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, both of whom have taken such a great interest in these matters, when I say that, although between us we have made very great efforts to try to rationalise the whole of the betting and gaming life of the country, we never hoped that such generous words would be used with regard to this rather difficult Bill, which incidentally is unprecedented in what it attempts to achieve. It is not completely unprecedented, as has been pointed out by reference to paragraph 22 of the Peppiatt Committee Report, but in its own terms it is unprecedented.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick said that the schemes for the spending of the levy should be laid before Parliament. I should point out that those schemes have to be approved by the Home Secretary. There is that measure of indirect Parliamentary control, and there will be a summary of each scheme in the annual report of the Levy Board. We know from experience with the present Tote Board that those schemes can be so full of detail that it would not be really sensible to lay the whole mass of detail before Parliament, but the summaries will be there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) referred to the chairman and the two independent members and asked whether they would receive remuneration. There is power for them to be remunerated and it is the present intention of my right hon. Friend that they should be remunerated and, of course, adequately. When speaking of the chairman and two independent members of the Levy Board, I should also refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), who asked whether they would be truly independent, independent of any vested

interest connected with the industry. I am able to assure him that they will.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West referred to the new Tote Board's commitments, and I am very glad that he did so, because they will be important commitments and the members of the Tote Board will have the opportunities given in the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, especially in regard to the increased power to arrange for bets at Tote odds and to appoint agents for them.
The hon. Member for Dudley, in his very helpful speech, pointed out that the present Tote Board has been entering into various commitments. Before referring to those matters, I want to say how pleased we were about the welcome to the Bill which he gave not only on his own behalf, but also, I think, to some extent on behalf of his colleagues on the Board of which he has been a distinguished and, I believe, very helpful member for some years.
With regard to the liabilities of the Board and in particular its commitments for the future, about which there is a gentleman's agreement between the Board and the racecourse executives, the hon. Gentleman explained how the racecourse executives had undertaken expenditure in the expectation of grants. As a matter of law, those promises would not be binding on the new Board, but they were made and accepted in good faith, and I can hardly believe that the new Levy Board would wish to ignore them.
As the hon. Member said, Clause 9 provides for the transfer of assets and liabilities, having regard to the functions which are to be transferred to the Levy Board. However, the Bill can transfer only liabilities which are enforceable at law and not moral obligations under gentleman's agreements. Of course we would not want to destroy any such moral obligations as there might be and, so far as any opinion of mine carried any weight, I am sure that it would be right for the Levy Board, when established to seek to honour the commitments, and there it is.
Clause 9 also requires that there shall be consultation between the Tote Board and the Levy Board about the transfer of assets and liabilities, and this matter


will probably be raised in those consultations. The hon. Member made a number of points of detail on behalf of the present Board which we shall be glad to consider between now and the Committee stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) drew attention to those Clauses which impose disqualifications on Members of Parliament from sitting on these Boards, and my right hon. Friend has asked me to say that we will bear in mind what has been said in the debate and no doubt we shall consider these matters further in Committee. There is certainly no question of our having closed minds on this subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde asked when the change from the old to the new Tote Board would be. To some extent that depends on how Parliamentary business goes. The sooner we get the Bill, the sooner my right hon. Friend can name an appointed day for the various parts of the Bill, including this takeover.
The right hon. Member for South Shields said—and it was a fair comment to make—that it was not apparent from the Bill that the Bookmakers' Committee would include bookmakers. We want it to be broadly representative of the bookmaking interests, and we shall consult the organisations concerned and we shall bear in mind, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that there are no fewer than eighteen of them. If the right hon. Gentleman will let us have his list, we would be glad to check it with ours.

Mr. James McInnes: Do I understand that in setting up the Bookmakers' Committee the Government will consider the regional or geographical basis on which it is constituted and will bear in mind the position of the organisations in Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Renton: We would take account of geographical, as well as of other relevant considerations.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) that the levy proposed in the Bill conflicts with the well-established principle that all revenue raised by way of taxa-

tion should be paid into the Consolidated Fund, and that all payments made by the authority of Parliament should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. That is also a fair point, and I am glad to have a chance to say a word about it.
It is true that for more than a century successive Parliaments and successive Governments have accepted the principle that all revenue should be paid into and payments made from a single fund, and that, with only occasional exceptions, they have set their face against what is called hypothecation of revenue to particular forms of expenditure, but the principle has never been taken to the length of entirely ruling out a statutory levy that is collected, as in this case, from one part of an industry for the benefit of another. In recent years, we have had the levy under the Sugar Act, 1956, and the levy under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957.
I do not suggest that those two examples, and others that can be mentioned, are exactly on all fours with the present case, but we certainly gave careful consideration to the point of view that has been expressed today, because it had been expressed in a previous debate before we prepared this Bill. We came to the conclusion that, in the quite unusual circumstances of the subject matter of this Bill, the device that we have put into the Bill would not be in any way improper.
My hon. Friend also asked whether the various accounts that may have to be kept as a result of the Bill will be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. The answer is "No", because these are not public funds in the true sense of the word.
I now come to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), and supported by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden), suggesting that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading, not, as I understand it, because it is intrinsically defective, but because it does not include any reference to the greyhound racing industry.
I do not make any point about the tactics that were used; they may well have been the most suitable for them to use to establish their point. I make no


complaint whatever, but my answer to the substance of the case—

Mr. A. Lewis: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows, of course, that that was the only way in which we could raise this subject.

Mr. Renton: Well, I have assumed it, anyway.
First, I must emphatically answer the point made by the hon. Gentleman that there was discrimination against greyhound racing and in favour of horse racing. There is no question whatever of discrimination. The circumstances of the two industries are quite different, as my right hon. Friend pointed out and as I shall also endeavour to show. We listened with great interest to the case somewhat movingly put, I thought, by the hon. Gentleman. The argument seems to be that what is good for horse racing is good for greyhound racing; that the two sports are similar, and should have similar treatment.
On the facts, we cannot accept that as a proposition. The way has been fully prepared for this Bill relating to horse racing. There has been an impartial inquiry by an independent committee, and prolonged consultations with the interests concerned, including the bookmakers. None of these considerations applies to greyhound racing. It is true, that several hon. Members suggested to my right hon. Friend that there should be a levy for greyhound racing, but I am sure that they would agree that the ground has not been prepared in anything like the same way as has this levy on horse racing—

Mr. A. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Renton: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give me a chance to attempt to answer the case which has been put so very fully.
We are surely right in saying that it cannot logically be maintained, in all common sense, that the needs of the two sports are equally pressing. The amenities of greyhound racing tracks vary, but there are many extremely prosperous greyhound racing companies which, to their great credit, are making profits for themselves and providing wonderful amenities for those who go to see the races.
As for the suggestion about the importance of a potential export trade, I

really must suggest that we should keep a sense of economic proportion about this. The hon. Member mentioned the Irish export trade. The Irish have for many years been to the fore in the export of greyhounds, but their exports to countries other than the United Kingdom have never exceeded £30,000 in any one year.
Whereas the Peppiatt Report suggested that a levy was desirable to arrest a decline in horse racing, the argument with regard to greyhound racing is that the levy is required, not to halt a decline, but to build up a potential new business in breeding greyhounds for export. Although we have found justification for a levy for horse racing in the circumstances which have been proved, we find no circumstance which would justify a levy for greyhound racing.

Mr. A. Lewis: Is it not a fact that only last year £619,000 worth of greyhounds were imported into England from Ireland? Does not that prove that, if assistance were given to our home breeding, there would be no need for such imports and at least £619,000 would be saved and, if breeding were improved, there would be a great possibility of exporting from this country to America, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere?

Mr. Renton: That is arguable in more than one way. It is possible to conceive that, as a result of the greyhound racing industry being built up to an even more prosperous state, the number of imports from Ireland would have to be even greater in order to supply the number of dogs required, at any rate for some years.
The point is that there has been the most elaborate formal independent inquiry and there has been consideration by the House of Commons of the case which led to the presentation of the Bill. There has not been such in the case of greyhound racing. I express the hope that the Bill will be considered on its own merits and that it will be judged on what it contains rather than on what it omits.
I will add this on the subject of greyhounds. There is, of course, nothing to prevent those bookmakers Who are interested in greyhound racing from giving any voluntary support to the sport that they like.

Mr. A. Lewis: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) quite rightly pointed out that this again is evidence of bias against greyhound racing. The Government very quickly—quite rightly, perhaps—agreed to set up the Peppiatt Committee. That Committee very quickly came forward with its Report, and the Government very quickly got on with the job of preparing and introducing this Bill. That is the point. Why could there not be a Peppiatt Committee for greyhound racing? Why has there been this bias in favour of horse racing?

Mr. Renton: There has been no bias whatever. A very strong prima facie case was made out for the Peppiatt Committee on horse racing and no such prima facie case has been made out for a committee of inquiry into greyhound racing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) asked an important question about the categories which are mentioned in the Bill as being categories which the Levy Board, on the initiative of the Bookmakers' Committee, in drawing up a scheme must arrive at before contributions are levied on bookmakers. He asked whether the categories suggested by the Peppiatt Committee would necessarily be the only categories which the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board could consider. The answer is "No". So long as they lay down categories, they can be based on any principle and make any division which these two Boards consider right I should say, in passing, that if they fail to reach agreement, it is the chairman and the two independent members of the Levy Board who will have to decide the matter.
My hon. Friend also wanted to know how the members of the Levy Board would come to a decision, bearing in mind that there are eight of them. The position is that if necessary the Levy Board can arrange its own procedure in such a way that the chairman would be given a casting vote, which would mean that he would have two votes, whereas all the rest of the Board would have only one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East suggested that there should be a ceiling written into the Bill as to the

annual amount of the levy. May I presume to advise him and his friends on that questions? There is surely a danger that any ceiling is likely to become a target, instead of merely being regarded as a maximum. If we write a ceiling into the Bill, it might well have the exactly opposite effect from that contemplated by its advocates.
The question arose and was mentioned in many speeches as to the composition of the Levy Board, and this is clearly a matter which we shall have to consider in Committee. Meanwhile, I was glad of the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), who speaks with considerable knowledge, not of betting, but of horses, and who said that he was glad that the Levy Board was to be small. I think there is broad agreement that, whatever the precise composition of the Board should be, if it is to do its job effectively, it should be small.
It is gratifying to find that the Bill in broad principle has received the support of the House. There are matters for discussion in Committee, but it is a good thing that the Committee stage should start in the same agreeable atmosphere as that in which this debate has taken place.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Noble.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Central Electricity Generating Board to produce radioactive material in a nuclear reactor at any of the Board's generating stations for sale or supply to other persons, and to sell or supply radioactive material produced in any such reactor, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which may be required to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, or paid into the Exchequer, or raised by the Treasury, under section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment, or under section seventeen of the Electricity Act, 1957.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF POWERS OF CENTRAL ELECTRICITY GENERATING BOARD.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: Before Clause 1 goes through, I should like to raise one or two points with the Minister. First of all, I was very disturbed during the Second Reading debate, when time and time again I came across references by hon. Members opposite to the fact that they were pleased that private industry was not to be precluded from processing and disposing of radio isotopes produced by the Central Electricity Generating Board's stations. Towards the end the Minister said that it might be as well if private industry intervened.
First, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to comments made by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) during the Second Reading. He said:
I am glad to see that there is nothing in the Bill which absolutely precludes the job of finishing and marketing being handed over to a private firm or firms should that later become desirable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 790.]
The Minister in introducing the Bill, and particularly when dealing with Clause I, said that only £100,000 was required to convert a nuclear power station to produce radioisotopes and envisaged that from two stations there would be a return of £500,000 in one year. To many hon. Members opposite it was too good to be true that there should be such a profitable sideline from a nationalised industry. Therefore, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said.
Putting it out into private industry will help our export trade."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 800.]
What disturbed me most of all was that when the Parliamentary Secretary wound up the debate he said:

At the moment, the Board has only one customer—and that will probably be the case for a long time—and that is the Atomic Energy Authority.
Later he said:
If there is unity between the Authority, the Board, aid one or two private firms in this new and expanding industry … such a partnership will, in the long run, be best for this industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 816.]
Before the Clause goes through Committee, I should like the Minister to give me an assurance that there is no intention of private industry being drawn in either to produce or to dispose of radioisotopes produced by the Central Electricity Generating Board's nuclear power stations. I should prefer to see a close and more continuous working partnership between these two nationalised bodies, the A.E.A. and the C.E.G.B. It disturbs me time and time again that, if a nationalised body produces a profitable sideline, private enterprise wants to step in when all the costly and initial research has been done by the taxpayer.
I should like the Minister to assure us that there is no chance of private industry stepping in and gradually taking over the Radioisotope Division at Harwell, thereby creaming off the profit after all the initial research has been done by the A.E.A. and the production by the C.E.G.B.
Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister something concerning the storing capacity of the C.E.G.B. stations. When they start producing radioisotopes, is it the intention that they shall be stored on their sites or is it the intention that they shall be immediately transferred to the Radioisotopes Division at Harwell? Not long ago we dealt with the Radioactive Substances Bill. We have been worried a great deal about the growing dumps of radioactive material and radioactive waste. I wish to ask whether this matter is to be passed immediately to the A.E.A.
Finally, I should like to deal with safety in transport. Now that these two extra stations will be producing radioisotopes and radioactive material more of them will be transported by road or rail to the Radioisotopes Division at Harwell. The Minister undoubtedly is aware that I have asked time and time again that we should give consideration


to the introduction of a national code of symbols so that all radioactive materials transported in containers have a symbol on them which immediately conveys to a policeman or fireman the degree of radiation if an accident or fire occurs.
Although, as I understand, this has been discussed recently abroad with a view to the introduction of an international code, in view of the time it is taking—and we are transporting a great deal more of these substances on the roads and railways; we are the largest exporters in the world—we ought to have introduced an international code already. I therefore ask the Minister to tell us whether we have made progress in this regard.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) again introduced the safety element. It will be recalled that on Second Reading we on this side placed special emphasis on it and pointed out that we were not yet satisfied with the safety provisions which obtained, despite the fact that a considerable number of Acts on the Statute Book dealt with the subject. We will not oppose the Clause. It is what might be called the "guts" of the Bill. It is an improvement on the position in which we were left after the 1957 Act and we welcome the enlargement of the powers of the Generating Board as laid down in in the Clause. We are not satisfied, however, that the wording is as wise as it could well be.
I do not wish to repeat what we argued on Second Reading, but it will be recalled that the reason why the Clause has to be discussed and brought before us at all is that the 1957 Act struck out the words of the 1947 Act which gave power of manufacture; and now that we have reached the stage when the Board obviously wishes to manufacture radioactive isotopes, it is necessary for the Clause, which enlarges the powers of the Board, to be brought into legislation.
In view of the experience of the last three years, would it not have been far wiser of the Government to have written wider powers into the Clause than it contains? It deals entirely with the production of radioactive material. I notice that in the Schedule we shall write certain words into the 1957 Act to corres-

pond with what we are now discussing in Clause 1. We are, however, in a phase in which great changes have taken place rapidly. I do not suggest that we should enlarge the financial scope of the Bill or anything of that kind.
It is impossible for any of us to say exactly how the development of radioactive isotopes will go in the next two or three years or the kind of manufacture which will be necessary. It may well be that within a short time the Minister will once more have to come to the House to point out that the scope of the Board's activities has again widened con-considerably and that because of the limiting nature of Clause 1 of the present Bill, the Government must, for the second time within three years, seek the permission of the House to widen the scope of the Generating Board.
For that reason, I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to go far nearer to the wording of the 1947 Act—in other words, to give general power concerning manufacture to the Generating Board, rather than merely to restrict the Board's powers to what is contained in the Clause. I am not saying that it is necessary to go outside the scope of the Bill, which is concerned with radioactive isotopes. I do not feel, however, that we are best serving the objectives of the Board by restricting it in the way we are now doing.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, even now, reconsider the wording. It may well be that during its passage through another place, the wording of the Clause could be made a little more elastic, so that not only it may give the Board powers for developments which are not yet foreseeable, but so that the Government will not have to take up the time of the House in asking for further powers for the Board. That was the kind of thing I had in mind. It is a very limiting point within Clause 1, and I would have welcomed the widening of these two conditions.
9.0 p.m.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley said and others of us tried to say on Second Reading, that safety precautions in an industry which is yet in its infancy cannot hope to be sufficient in themselves when that


industry develops as this one will undoubtedly do; and that he will give us an assurance that, from time to time, he will come to the House and ask for powers of safety concerning waste disposal, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and other matters of that kind. This is a great problem. Scientists are not agreed on the degree of safety now in our rivers and in the sea, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, having these powers, will regard himself as under an obligation to the Committee to ensure that the widening of powers will not mean that safety, as we now know it, will be neglected.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): In reply to the points raised, I should say how pleased we are to see the hon. Gentleman for Newton (Mr. Lee) still dealing with power matters. We heard that he had translated to another field, but I am glad to find that he is still "caretaking" on this subject.
I agree entirely with what he said about safety, and I should like to deal with that when I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). As to the general point that the hon. Member for Newton made made about the amendment to the 1957 Act and the narrowness with which Clause 1 of the Bill is drawn, our view is that the amendment of the 1957 Act was a wise one, because it was desired to limit the functions of the Generating Board to electricity generation. But it has been necessary in this case to introduce this modification of that limitation, and, no doubt, if it becomes necessary in the future to make some further modification, then it would be necessary—and I think quite rightly necessary—for me or my successor to ask for the relevant powers from the House. Therefore, I do not think this is too narrowly drawn. I think that it is drawn exactly rightly to deal with the limitation that we have in mind.
I should like to deal with one or two of the points which the hon. Member for Barnsley raised. I think that he has been a little doctrinaire about private enterprise, if he will forgive me saying so; and I should like to make quite clear to him that I support entirely what was said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member

for Dorset, North (Sir R. Glyn) on Second Reading. I am fortified in this because not only do I support what they said but also what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said. I thought that perhaps the hon. Gentleman might have read his speech—perhaps he did, but did not agree with it. The hon. Member for Workington, who as Opposition spokesman for science has been dealing with the Betting Levy Bill tonight, said on that occasion:
I am in no way doctrinaire, and I welcome what has been done, and, indeed, private industry, for example, through Hawker-Siddeley, is doing work for the Atomic Energy Authority. This association will continue with the Central Electricity Generating Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 808.]
It is rather difficult to know exactly where the Opposition stand when these diametrically opposite views are expressed by the hon. Member for Barnsley and the hon. Member for Workington.

Mr. Mason: The Minister when referring to the Atomic Energy Authority is not necessarily referring to the production, processing and disposal of radioactive isotopes with which this Bill deals.

Mr. Wood: I gathered from the hon. Gentleman's speech—I will take the opportunity of discussing it with him later—that he was giving his blessing to a partnership between the Central Electricity Generating Board and private enterprise. I would agree with that blessing. At the moment, as my hon. Friend said on Second Reading, the A.E.A. is doing the processing, but I think it would be wholly undesirable if for the rest of time the C.E.G.B. were to be limited to one single market for its isotopes, in the shape of the A.E.A. Therefore, I think I would in no way exclude but welcome, when the time came, private enterprise joining with the A.E.A. in the processing of isotopes for the public good.
As for the profitability of this nationalised industry, that surely will not be affected at all, because all it will mean is that the Central Electricity Generating Board in future will have the alternative of two markets, and, therefore, its profitability will presumably, I hope, increase.

Mr. Mason: On this question of the production of radioisotopes and the processing of them, surely it is not possible—and the right hon. Gentleman knows this, for this was a point made in the debate—for a private firm to put in the initial expenditure required for the elaborate processing equipment for the job. Consequently, it can venture into this only if first of all a nationalised body, which has been fed by Government money received from the taxpayer, is willing to give it all that initial research free of charge, so that it can set up the equipment and plant.

Mr. Wood: If it is not possible for private enterprise to enter the field I do not know what the hon. Member is worried about. But it will not matter if the Central Electricity Generating Board gives them the research because the job they will do, as I am sure the hon. Member appreciates, is to process and finish off the job which the Generating Board has not done. Therefore, I do not think it at all unwelcome—if we consider it as a purely non-doctrinaire matter—that there should in the future be a possibility of more than one processor of the Central Electricity Generating Board's isotopes. I should have thought that the hon. Member would have welcomed that as being a good thing, that the Generating Board in future will not have to deal with only one market.
Secondly, he mentioned the question of storage by the Board. I understand that it is the plan to transfer isotopes

for processing without delay. As the Generating Board's nuclear stations will have to be licensed under the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, appropriate safety conditions will be imposed if it has in fact to store these istotopes for any length of time. That will apply not only to isotopes, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to anything on the site as far as safety is concerned.
Lastly, he mentioned the question of the symbols which will advertise their radioactivity as these isotopes move from one place to another. I think the position here is that under Section 1 of the Radioactive Substances Act, 1960, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is given power to prescribe conditions prohibiting the sale and supply of radioactive material unless it is marked in this way; the position at the moment is that the conditions which might be prescribed are now being considered. I will certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the notice of my right hon. Friend and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see an advance in this matter in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Sir NORMAN HULBERT in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1960–61

CLASS V, VOTE 5

National Health Service, England and Wales

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,665,600, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the provision of national health services for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including certain grants in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

9.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): The whole of this Supplementary Estimate relates to increased remuneration. Most of it—£35,978,000 gross—is for payments to doctors and is the result of the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration. A sum of £21,399,700 is back payment for the period 1st March, 1957, to 31st March, 1960, and the balance of £14,578,500 is pay for the current year. The opportunity has also been taken in presenting this Supplementary Estimate to ask for money to cover other wage awards already announced.
The Government's acceptance of the Pilkington Report as a whole was announced by the then Minister on 11th April, 1960, provided that the professions did likewise. The Government proposed that the professions should participate in joint working parties to work out proposals in detail for this payment. Two working parties were set up, one to deal with medical and dental staffs in hospital and specialist services, and one to consider the distribution of the

increased sums proposed for general medical practitioners. On 28th September the British Medical Association and the Joint Consultants' Committee indicated the medical profession's acceptance of the Government's offer, and the results are contained in this Estimate which I hope the Committee will accept.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Can my hon. Friend tell us what were the other wage awards?

Miss Pitt: They are set out in the Estimates and I refer my hon. and learned Friend to page 5, which gives the details. The largest item among the seven is for clerical and ancillary workers.

9.13 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I think the Committee will agree that these Estimates were necessary in order to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but there are one or two questions I wish to ask. First, I suppose the Committee could ask whether this large sum is justified. If as a doctor I said that I thought it was, it might be felt that perhaps I was a little biased, but if one recalls the lay Press on the subject, the concensus of opinion was that it was and that the doctors deserve this increase.
While the general practitioners have received their share, how long will the hospital staffs have to wait until they receive theirs? Will all the arrears of salary be paid by January, 1961, including retrospective adjustments for the years 1957, 1958 and 1959? I would remind the Minister of Health that these sums should be regarded as unpaid salary covering four years, and that is a long time for professional men and women to wait. Many of these doctors who are employed in hospitals and clinics are not well off and many of them have heavy family responsibilities. There seems to me to have been inordinate delay in settling this matter.
I have seen a letter addressed to a member of the senior medical staff of a hospital which said that it was unlikely that the Ministry could make these retrospective payments before 31st March at the earliest. The Parliamentary Secretary has already told us that the


Royal Commission reported in April. The Ministry then offered the profession what was called a "package deal". Many members of the profession felt rather sore about it. They were told that they had either to accept or reject the offer without amendment.
I read many of the discussions which took place between various organisations within the profession and there was no doubt that in the minds of some of the members there was the feeling that if they accepted the offer without amendment the payments would be made. It is surprising to learn that although the general practitioners have been paid the doctors in the hospitals have been told that the payments cannot be made before 31st March, 1961, at the earliest. I know it can be argued that there have been people who have been on the staff of a hospital for a very short period and they have to be traced—I accept that—but why cannot those who have been in their present posts a number of years and have worked in them during the years in question be paid now? Surely there would be no difficulty about that.
Also, why has not the pay structure involved in this very large sum of money been related to the general health of the service? This was certainly not within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, but I understand that the Ministry has decided to set aside £1 million to improve general practice. I asked the Minister about this before the debate and I understand that the £1 million is included in these estimates, and so it is in order for me to ask what the Minister proposes to do with the money. I am not suggesting for a moment that he is wrong to do this When any profession or body of workers is paid a very large sum such as this, it would be stupid and short-sighted for the Minister not to say "In these circumstances let us look at the whole Service and see whether we can improve it in some way". There is no reason why the Minister should not do so, and, psychologically, it would certainly be agreed that this is just the moment when the recipients of this money seem receptive to new ideas. The Minister wisely said, "Let us at least have £1 million to improve general practice." That was accepted; but surely this is only tinkering with the problem.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Where is this stated?

Dr. Summerskill: It is not stated in the Supplementary Estimates. This is known only if one has done one's homework fairly well. I say that to earmark £1 million of this large sum of money to improve general practice is tinkering with the problem. I would remind the Minister that this is probably the last time that such a large sum will be allocated in this way. In future, the Standing Review Body which the Royal Commission advocated should be set up will examine the remuneration of doctors and dentists every three years; this may lead to adjustment of salaries in a very minor way, and structural changes may not be so acceptable when there are only minor salary increases.
This was the psychological moment for the Minister to say that as this large sum of money was being given he wanted the service improved. I do not want to be unkind to the Minister, but has he seen tonight's Evening Standard? It contains a cartoon which suggests that he is coming along with a very big hatchet. It would be cruel to suggest that there is any truth in that. I am sure that he wants to save money, and at the same time to do it in a constructive manner. This was his great opportunity, but unfortunately he has missed it.
The general practitioners were quite happy to allow the Minister to have this £1 million, and he might tell us tonight what ideas he has on the subject. No doubt my hon. Friends can suggest some things to him. I suggest that at this stage he uses it, first, on refresher courses. It is impossible for older men and women in the profession to keep up to date with the tremendous progress which is being made, not only in drugs, but in all kinds of therapeutic processes and diagnostic methods. Refresher courses are important.
If the right hon. Gentleman is making these changes in general practice, he must remember to reduce the maximum size of the list. Why has he not the courage to go further? Time after time he has said, if we are to believe the Press, that he wants to reduce the hospital population. He is quite right in wanting to do that. I cannot believe that there is any truth in the story that he is considering


charging sick people for their food while in hospital in order to reduce the hospital population. He knows that that has been alleged, but I cannot accept it. He can reduce the hospital population very effectively if he places more emphasis on the domiciliary service. He has decided to take £1 million out of this sum, which will be agreed to tonight. We shall not divide on this.

Mr. Willis: I am trying to find out under which subhead the Minister has deducted the £1 million, because it is very mysterious to us.

Dr. Summerskill: I am told by the Minister that it is Subhead F, but it is not very clear.

Mr. William Ross: I have been looking at Subhead F, which is the only subhead it can come under, but the information given for the £19 million is:
Additional provision required for payments under arrangements made with medical practitioners.
I presume that the arrangements are already made and that we should have heard about this from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Dr. Summerskill: I know these things only because I do my homework very carefully and read the British Medical Journal every week. It was reported in full in the medical journals. If I was not a member of the medical profession I should not have known.

Mr. Ross: From what my right hon. Friend said I was under the impression that no arrangement had been made and that the Minister did not know how he intended to spend the money. We are being asked to agree to £19 million, but we have been given no explanation of the £1 million and the Minister evidently has not made up his mind about what he intends to do with it.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister will not be able to give details when he winds up, but he obviously has something in mind. I have taken the opportunity to plant a few seeds which I hope will germinate and finally bear fruit next year when the appropriate Committee reports. The fact is that £1 million has been taken for the purpose of improving general practice and that comes out of

the general medical services. The revised estimate is £11 million, and from that the additional sum required is £2 million. One million pounds will be taken out of that.
If the Minister thought fit to ask for £1 million for the purpose of improving the general medical services, why did he not think fit to ask for a little more to improve other parts of the service?
As I have said, he should have placed more emphasis on the domiciliary service. He should have seized this opportunity to make consultants' domiciliary visits free, so that the consultants' basic salary could be increased. If there is any question whether I am in order, I would point out that the consultants' basic salary could be increased by reducing their merit awards. I suggest that the C class should be abolished. If the Minister will consider this and will also increase the basic pay I am sure that he will be able to persuade the younger consultants coming along that this is the right approach. In every country where a new medical service has been introduced it is always the older consultants who are the most conservative. When they retire or die the younger ones coming along are more adaptable.
If, then, they have this basic salary and they can see domiciliary cases free, which means that the general practitioners can easily have a second opinion, the Minister will find that his hospital population will be reduced. I believe his predecessor agreed with me that it is utterly stupid to pay £25 or £26 per week for a hospital bed when that expense could have been avoided if the patient had had a second opinion, which now costs the State about four guineas.
I would remind the Minister that the consultant sees the first eight domiciliary cases free, and after that he is permitted to see 200 for a certain payment. But 200 is the limit, and there is no doubt that there is some hesitation on the part of general practitioners, when considering whether they can call in the consultant when his services are free. When the 200 limit has been reached, on the other hand, the general practitioner says, "I cannot see the consultant I want to see because he has reached his limit." If the basic salary were raised and the consultants' services


were free in respect of domiciliary cases it would help to solve the problem of our overfull hospitals.
Evidence has been forthcoming that it is more economic to provide whole-time consultants, and I cannot see why conditions of service have been loaded in favour of part-time consultants. If the Minister knows his Pilkington he will recall that Pilkington argued this very congently, and pointed out that the part-time consultant had certain concessions in respect of Income Tax and mileage. We are now voting a sum of money which will be given to various professional people working in the National Health Service, and we have a right to ask why the part-time consultant is still more favoured than the whole-time consultant.
I now turn to the general medical services. The Minister will recall that the Royal Commission recommended that a special fund of £500,000 should be provided especially to recognise distinguished general practice by additional remuneration. Although, as in the case of the first £1 million, it is not mentioned, I take it that this £500,000 is included in the Estimates. It must be, because it was recommended that that sum should be applied in accordance with a scheme to be agreed between the profession and the Government and that
Until a scheme is agreed, the money should revert to the Treasury. Any part of the fund which is not expended should similarly revert.
A sum cannot revert to the Treasury unless it is in the hands of the Minister, so may I ask, is this £500,000 included here?

The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I do not think that any part of the £500,000 is included here, because it is not anticipated that the agreement on which the payment out of it will be based can be effected during the present financial year.

Dr. Summerskill: Would not this £500,000 be in the general medical services? After all, it is earmarked for the general medical services as merit awards to general practitioners.

Mr. Powell: Yes, but if as in the passage of the Pilkington Report, which the hon. Lady quoted, it is in the meantime in the hands of the Treasury, then

the sums required are not asked for in Parliament.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister does not seem to be certain. I am only emphasising the word "revert". A thing cannot revert to the Treasury from the Minister unless the Minister already has it. Therefore I base my case on the wording which says that until the scheme is agreed the money should revert. I am not sure that the Minister is right, unless it has been confirmed—has it been confirmed? I see that a little note is being passed on the Government Front Bench. When I was in office those little notes which were handed to me proved very useful in telling me whether I was right or wrong. May I take it that the Minister was right?

Mr. Powell: Perhaps the right hon. Lady can wait until I come to it.

Dr. Summerskill: I suspect then that I was right.
If this £500,000 for merit awards is included, may I for a moment present an hypothetical case? May we ask whether a scheme has been agreed and what qualifications or qualities a general practitioner should possess to entitle him to a share in this £500,000? The Minister will agree, if he has read the various debates in the medical journals, that medical practitioners are concerned with the approach to merit awards. They would like to have defined precisely what qualities a general practitioner has to possess to entitle him to a merit award. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister is more concerned to encourage extremes of earning than to find ways of improving general practice both in the interests of the patients and the doctors.
May we know more about the distribution of this money regarding matters mentioned by the Royal Commission which said:
While we entirely approve of the efforts that have been made, and sensibly made, to encourage the formation of partnerships, we feel that the financial incentive at present provided is somewhat excessive. … The single-handed practitioner is at a financial disadvantage to an extent which we consider unjustifiable.
The Commission further stated:
The gap between the rural and urban earnings should be somewhat reduced.


Has the Minister any plans for that?
Greater weight ought to be given to items other than capitation … The pool balance should be distributed more promptly and budgeted more narrowly.
Finally, I wish to ask—I think this important—what has been done regarding informing the general practitioners who have already received their remuneration, and implementing this simple recommendation of the Royal Commission, that more should be done to render the pool system intelligible to those whose living depends on it? The pool system is a most complicated approach to payment. Most doctors who are utterly exhausted at the end of the week pick up their British Medical Journal and sometimes see the system described there and how the pool functions. But when these sums of money are sent to doctors it should be explained precisely how the pool, which determines how much they shall get, actually works.
I remind the Minister of Professor Jewkes' minority report. It was astonishing that this Royal Commission sat for three years and there was only one dissentient, Professor Jewkes. He expressed the view that this increase in remuneration would not attract a sufficient number of medical students. As this is essential to the efficient working of the Service, may we know if the increase represented in the Supplementary Estimate would achieve this purpose? Although the Ministry has accepted the recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to remuneration—and we all welcome that—it has utterly failed to seize the opportunity to remove many of the anomalies of the Service and to make changes in structure which would have benefited both doctors and patients.

9.36 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I am happy to support these Supplementary Estimates, but none the less I follow the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) to a general extent in what she said about a missed opportunity in connection with the increases in pay of general practitioners as recommended by the Pilkington Report. I think it a great pity that we in the House of Commons should not have debated the Pilkington Report

before the money was granted rather than afterwards.
No one grudges this payment to general practitioners, least of all one like myself who has spent many years in general practice, but I feel that an opportunity has been missed, an opportunity even wider than that mentioned by the right hon. Lady. She confined her remarks to the question of £1 million, but my view is that an opportunity has been missed of considering the whole method of payment of general practitioners and whether we are in fact using the best method available in the payment by capitation fee.
I am not by any means coining an original remark when I say that, under the present method of payment and the present conditions of working, there are definite built-in disincentives to efficient medical practice. The fact that those disincentives are resisted to the extent they are is a tribute to the devotion of the doctors in practice today. We have to realise that in this method of payment by capitation fee the doctor has only one incentive from a financial point of view—namely, to get the maximum number of patients, and that is really all. He gets no more if he attends them all every day and no less if he sends them all to hospital whether as out-patients or in-patients. He is penalised financially automatically if he spends money on his surgery or employs extra secretarial or nursing assistance. That all comes off his salary. The incentive for more work and better work is a negative one.
This question could well have been considered by the Royal Commission. I seem to remember that I suggested that in a Question to the Prime Minister at the time when the Commission was appointed. The Commission turned aside from that, I think deliberately, and a great opportunity has been missed which, for the reasons the right hon. Lady stated, may not recur for a number of years owing to the revised method of fixing remuneration.
The hon. Lady also referred to the question of the £1 million, a question which is hanging in the air. From my reading of the medical Press, merit awards have proved so unpopular that the idea has now been dropped altogether, but we still have this sum of


money as an incentive to efficient general practice, and it will be interesting to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about it.
I admit that the Royal Commission was bound by its terms of reference, but I am not at all certain that it did not neglect the main problem and I am not optimistic about this sum of money being enough for the purpose. It can merely tinker with the problem. However, I shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's views, and to hear how he proposes to deal with the present problem, which he has inherited.
Those of us who are interested in the Health Service had a genuine grouse in the last Session of Parliament, because in the whole Session we had only three hours in which to debate the Service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to prevail upon our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide more time on the Floor of the House so that we can impart our ideas and generally keep in touch with developments in the Service.
I want finally to deal with the hospital Estimates and to ask whether my right hon. Friend can pay attention to the question of unnecessary and redundant outpatient attendances which, as those of us with experience in these matters know, is closely connected with the general practitioner service. We talk about developing domiciliary services, but it is the general practitioners who are essentially our agents for providing efficient domiciliary services, and not the local authorities or extensions of the hospital service. Both out-patient and inpatient hospital treatment are largely dependent on how the general practitioner works.
Finally, at Question Time last week I asked to what extent my right hon. Friend thought that capital expenditure on hospitals could be met by an increasing stimulus to voluntary contributions. I am sure that we must increasingly depend on voluntary contributions for helping to meet the cost of hospital extensions, departments and even new hospitals.
With these few general remarks, I have much pleasure in supporting the Estimates.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: Out of the sum of £37,665,000, one item is for £16,384,000 for regional hospital boards, and on page 5 of the Supplementary Estimate we are told that that additional provision is required for increased remuneration. I take it that that does not cover any remuneration for those engaged in administration.
In page 5, there is item E—Administration, £383,000, and I should like to know whether Item B.1 in the same page—£16,384,000—is inclusive or exclusive of administration. In page 5, again, we have an item of General Medical Services, amounting to £19,030,000, which is approximately half the total of £37 million. Will the Minister confirm that the amount going to the general medical practitioners is approximately half of the total sum that we are being asked to vote?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I welcome this Supplementary Estimate, as it closes a chapter over which the medical profession has been at loggerheads for about five years, and I think that we may now look forward to greater co-operation between the Ministry and the profession. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) when he says that the Minister has missed a great opportunity. The National Health Service has been in existence for about twelve years, and the Pilkington Report provided the chance not only to submit this Estimate but to make improvements that would have helped the nation, and not just the profession.
Looking at this Estimate, which all arises from the Pilkington Report, I again protest, as I have done week after week, at the way in which the Government have treated the House. The Royal Commission sat for three years, and there has been a considerable amount of discussion about it. It has been discussed in another place, but this is the only opportunity that we in this place get to discuss the very far-reaching matters that will arise. I do not think that even the two Reports mentioned by the hon. Lady have been presented to the House, or are available in a form which can be readily understood by hon.


Members unless they refer to the British Medical Journal or other medical periodicals.
The hon. Lady said that the B.M.A. had agreed, but surely it is the General Medical Services Committee that has the responsibility for negotiating on behalf of the General practitioners, and that Committee consists of quite a number of people who do not necessarily belong to the B.M.A.; indeed, other bodies are specifically included.
I welcome the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), on the way in which this Estimate relates to the central pool. One has to try to relate it to the way in which the sum of £16,384,000 will be divided among all the general practitioners. Not only hon. Members but doctors generally do not really know just how it will work out in practice. The Government treat hon. Members with profound contempt when, in such an important matter as this, they just make ad hoc decisions without taking into consultation hon. Members who have a right to discuss these things, and whose comments might help to relate such an Estimate as this more clearly to the job in hand.
It will be seen that in England we are to provide about £16 million for the regional boards and £3·7 million for the teaching hospitals, yet, as the Minister told me in answer to a Question, he is well aware that the regional hospitals undertake about 90 per cent. of the hospital care, and that only 10 per cent. is covered by the teaching hospitals. Yet we see that the ratio of salaries in the Supplementary Estimate is something like four to one instead of ten to one. Apparently, this does not apply to Wales. Whether it is that the Welsh are more egalitarian in their approach, I do not know, but I see that the proportion in Wales is about the same as the volume of medical care: regional hospital boards, £1 million; teaching hospitals, £107,000.
Cannot the Minister take the opportunity, when preparing Estimates of this kind, to establish some concrete policy in regard to the relationship between the salaries and pay being given to consultants, specialists, registrars and so on in the teaching hospitals as compared with the amount available in the regional

hospitals? Surely, the time has come when there should be the same kind of service in the one as in the other. By financial considerations of this kind it could be possible to effect a better balance.
My right hon. Friend has already mentioned the £500,000 proposed for the merit awards, an idea which, as the hon. Member for Carlisle has said, has been frowned upon by most of the correspondents in most of the medical journals. How can the Minister or anyone else judge merit between one doctor and another, whether one is giving good service and another is not? If I understand the reports correctly, this is a matter for further discussion jointly between the Minister and the profession. I hope that, if this £500,000 is to be presented in a future Estimate to the House, at least we may be taken into the Minister's confidence so that we may know just what is meant by that amount and know what kind of provision is intended, not just being faced with an Estimate at the last moment. I hope that we shall be given an opportunity to discuss it first.
I see that we have within the Estimates the amount for general practitioners who are principals, but there seems to be no safeguard at all for assistants who were employed during the period for which the back-pay operates. No doubt, the Minister will tell me that the assistants employed by a general practitioner are purely a matter of private arrangement. Nevertheless, there is no one but the Minister who can safeguard their interests. I know that there have been exhortations that general practitioners will play the game, find out which assistants they employed two years ago, and give them their share, but in the Pilkington Report quite a lot was made of the relevance of the fairness of pay for assistants, having regard to the original Spens Report. I hope that the Minister will not, arising out of these Estimates, just pass this blanket overall Estimate in consultation with the Working Party to the profession but will take steps to ensure that assistants have their due share. He has evailable the statistics he wants. The executive councils have a record of assistants who were employed, because one cannot employ an assistant without the permission of the executive council. Through that medium, justice surely could be done.
I notice from the various reports—which, again, this House is not in a position to discuss—that the £16 million and the other items in connection with Wales and Scotland are to be distributed by increasing the loading.

Mr. Willis: Scotland is not in this.

Mr. Pavitt: I beg the Committee's pardon. I should refer only to England and Wales. I think it is a very good thing that the loading should be increased. It encourages the middle-list man. Although I am not allowed to discuss Scotland on this Estimate, I must point out that there are discrepancies in this country in the size of lists. This opportunity could have been taken not only to increase the loading by 200 at different levels in partnerships and single handed practitioners but an effort could have been made to achieve a more general balance in the size of lists, especially since in parts of the country the average is as low as 1,600 whereas the national average is about 2,300.
The Minister might enlighten us also upon the way in which part of the money given to general practitioners is to be devoted to the increase of the obstetric fee. If I understand the Working Party Report correctly, the fee is to go up from 7 guineas to 12 guineas for obstetrics. Is not this part of the pattern of the piecemeal approach of the Minister to the whole subject of the National Health Service? We had the Cranbrook Report which dealt with obstetrics, which still has to be discussed by the House and still has to be implemented. We now have a little more for the general practitioners, who if they are on the obstetrics list will get an increase to 12 guineas, while the ones not on the obstetrics will get an increase to 7 guineas for their own patients.
I feel sure that if biological arrangements were different and men had to have the babies instead of women, this opportunity would have been taken to have a wholesale reorganisation of the obstetric services. Apart from the fact that we are fiddling about from 7 guineas to 12, there is a complete lack of co-ordination going right through in dealing with childbirth. The local authorities and the local health authorities are responsible

for ante-natal clinical arrangements, while the general practitioners may have responsibility for the actual confinement, and if something goes wrong the flying squad from the hospital is called in. I hope to hear something from the Minister about this co-ordination. All we have is the opportunity to discuss the supplementary estimate, which is not included here, but is part of the total sum in raising the general practitioner's fees from 7 to 12 guineas.
I join with my right hon. Friend in welcoming the fact that the doctors have agreed to put aside £1 million of the money to which they are entitled in order to improve general practice. Although it may sound a large sum, it represents only 3d. in the £ of the gross amount received by general practitioners, and I think this is a step in the right direction. I should welcome from the Minister some idea as to how he will use this and what he is going to do with this £1 million in order to improve general practice.
I think the crying need is that patients should not have to wait so long in such dreary and uncomfortable waiting rooms. Will he therefore devote part of this £1 million to encouraging general practitioners to have comfortable well designed waiting rooms? Will he put part of this sum to encourage them to have appointment arrangements, so that patients need not lose a morning's or an afternoon's work each time they visit a general practitioner?
Will the Minister devote part of this sum to developing within his Ministry, in the same way as hospitals can have advice, some advice on the best way of building doctors surgeries in the most efficient and most economical way? Will he advise the doctors on the best way to organise their surgeries and how best to design them, so that they can be pleasant, and make sure that people do not sit crowded and huddled together, with a certain amount of anxiety not knowing whether the next call will be for them or not, coughing, spluttering and sneezing together? There is a whole field in which this £1 million can be usefully applied, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity of hearing the present Minister of Health more often than we heard his predecessor.
I should be only too pleased to put further questions to the Prime Minister,


as I did last year, suggesting that he should include the Minister of Health in the Cabinet. The Government should stop treating the Minister of Health as being in a lowly position. These Estimates are part of the typical attitude which we have had—the Minister presents us with Estimates, and this is the only opportunity we have to discuss the whole range of the Health Service. I hope he will not be cheeseparing. I read with great interest the document which he prepared with his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary in 1952. Eight years have passed since then, and I hope that as a result of the experience gained, he will not approach these Estimates or any other future estimates with any idea that at all costs we have got to snip a little bit off the cost to the taxpayer at the expense of the care of the sick.
In welcoming these Estimates, I suggest that they can do good not only for the health of the nation, and for co-operation between the Ministry and the general practitioner, but so far as the economy of the nation is concerned, it is important that our workers, executives and the people who are producing the wealth of the country should remain healthy. I remind him that we lost 262 million days' production in 1958 from ill health, and this gets no headlines. We lost 3·7 million days from strikes, and we see something about strikes in the newspapers every day. Therefore, it seems to me that these Estimates and health policy they serve can be used not only for the benefit of the health of the people but for the benefit of the national economy, and the general well-being of the community. I welcome the Estimates on those grounds.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The Minister has come here over the past years in more than one capacity. In his previous capacities the thought of handing out nearly £43 million would have caused one of those heart attacks with which specialists are only too pleased to deal. Tonight he can come here and ask for £43 million—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Proceedings on the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House.—[Mr. Powell.]

Supply again considered in Committee.

Mr. Doughty: Despite that slight delay, the Minister is still asking for £43 million. The cause for which he has asked for it is a very worthy one. I am in complete agreement with the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), who rightly declared her interest, and other hon. Members who said that the doctors are a well-deserving body of people. They are a very hardworking body and, on the whole, very knowledgeable. We are all grateful for what they have done in the past and, no doubt, they will continue to do it in the future. I do not begrudge them a penny of this money, but it must have hurt the Minister a lot to ask for an additional £43 million. He should have looked round to see whether every penny of that sum should be handed over to the regional hospital boards and the teaching hospitals and whether it could not have been found from other sources.
Let me say at once that I am not suggesting for a moment that any of these nebulous charges should be put upon the public or that any additional charge should be made on the National Health Service. That is not what I have come to say.

Mr. Willis: It would be out of order if the hon. and learned Gentleman did.

Mr. Doughty: The cartoon in the Evening Standard to which reference has been made was both inaccurate and misleading. I do not believe that the Minister will in any way slash the National Health Service. But that is no reason why it should not be conducted with the same efficiency and greater economy. Like, I believe, hon. Members on both sides, I do not want to cut down the National Health Service in any way. But because large sums of money are spent on an article it does not necessarily mean that it is the best. It is possible often, with efficiency, to obtain the same article for less money.
The right hon. Lady, in talking about reducing the hospital population, said that we could save, I think, £25 or £26 a


week. I say with respect to her that her figures are wrong. This is where we should have made an economy. The figure for maintaining hospital patients in some London hospitals, at any rate—here I include the medical services—is approximately £80 a week. I do not think that that figure is fully known.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Diamond): The hon. and learned Member is going into considerable detail about a matter which does not appear to be strictly relevant to this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Doughty: I thought that someone might say that, Mr. Diamond, and therefore I had it carefully in mind. The question is: from where are we to get the money? Do we vote it out of the Treasury or find it from some other source? On an Admiralty Vote, if we wish to build new ships the question which must be considered is, what should be done with the old ones? We are asked to spend £349,628,000 for the regional hospital boards because, we are told, a further sum is rightly required for doctors.

The Temporary Chairman: If I may help the hon. and learned Gentleman, the question concerned is the expenditure of the additional sum of £16 million odd.

Mr. Doughty: The original sum was £330 million odd. Should this Committee vote it or should the Minister be told to effect economies which will save the whole or, at any rate, part of that sum? That is the point that I want to bring before the Committee tonight.

The Temporary Chairman: I am aware that the hon. and learned Member is anxious to bring that point before the Committee tonight. Unfortunately, it would not be in order so to do. I am trying to indicate to the hon. and learned Member what is in order and I am sure that he will now come closely to the Estimate for the supplementary amounts.

Mr. Doughty: Of course, I accept your Ruling at once, Mr. Diamond. I am saying that the House of Commons should not be asked to vote the whole of this sum, because the sums could have been found by the regional hospital boards from other sources. With the

greatest respect, Mr. Diamond, that is in order.

The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful for the respect, but it is not in order. We are concerned, not with where the money is coming from, but with where it is going.

Mr. Doughty: It is going to the doctors. The question is whether, when it goes to the doctors, they ought not, perhaps, to contribute some of it to the hospitals, because they are so expensive to run. If one looks at the cost of the hospitals—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Member must realise that we are not responsible for what the doctors do with this sum when it reaches their hands. I hope that he will now come to the point of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Doughty: I am entirely in favour of the Supplementary Estimate, Mr. Diamond. This Committee, however, must look closely at the sums which it votes. Although the money goes to the regional hospital boards for a certain purpose, we have to ask ourselves whether those boards require that sum. If a person has to spend more money and, therefore, asks for that sum, one naturally says to him, "Can you not economise in another way?" That, I respectfully suggest, is a question that we can properly ask ourselves in this Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is very clear to me. I am sorry that I am failing to be equally clear to him. I hope that I do not have to go to any further stage to make it clear to him that what he is endeavouring to say in relating his remarks to alternative sources from which the money could come, or might have come, is definitely out of order.

Mr. Doughty: Naturally, I accept your Ruling at once, Mr. Diamond.

Mr. Willis: The hon. and learned Member has had a good bash.

Mr. Doughty: I hope that my views are before the Committee. I do not wish to say that the doctors are not entitled to this sum. On the contrary, they are fully entitled to it. On a future


occasion, however, perhaps I may deal more fully with the hospital costs, because they are a matter which I have very much in mind.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order. Surely, Mr. Diamond, if on this matter one seeks to argue, for example, as I would, that one could provide by way of maintenance charges on a hospital, by way of private patients, the sum of money which the House of Commons could allocate under the £16 million to the doctors, it must be in order to say, "I agree that £16 million should be paid to the doctors and I agree that in the knowledge that I can recover that figure for the Treasury, because I will make a maintenance charge, say, for the full provision in hospitals." My hon. and learned Friend is merely seeking to say, "I agree in principle with the payment of a sum of money to these doctors, but I believe that there are other ways in which adequate provision could be made for that sum."
Is it not right, when debating the adequate provision of a sum of money, to be able to say at one and the same time, "I believe that that sum of money should be paid. I want to vote in support of it, but I want to argue the contention that the Minister should look at the argument which I am addressing to the Committee that whilst we will vote for this, we invite him to look to see whether he cannot make adequate provision out of certain measures in the Health Service." Surely, in those circumstances, my hon. and learned Friend would be in order to seek to advise the Committee that the scope should be broadened and the Minister's view broadened to take account of these factors.

The Temporary Chairman: No. The hon. and learned Member would not be in order in praying appropriations in aid, which is exactly the argument that is being put forward. The hon. and learned Member will find it referred to on page 735 of Erskine May if he would like to withdraw from the Chamber and consider the matter a little further.

Mr. Doughty: I do not propose to withdraw from the Chamber until I have made quite clear that at some future stage I shall raise this point, when I

shall, perhaps, be in order. Perhaps I could put it in another way. There are several ways in which I could put it, but I should only come back to the same point. The Minister knows very well what I have in mind. I shall raise this point again on every possible occasion, and I give him the sound advice that he had better have a look at it.

10.10 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): The whole Committee has welcomed the acceptance by the Government of the Pilkington recommendations, which, of course, is the fact which underlies the Supplementary Estimate which is before the Committee. I would associate myself wholeheartedly with that, for I believe that the acceptance of that Report cart, without exaggeration, be said to mark the opening of a new era in the relations between the medical profession, the National Health Service, the Health Ministries and, indeed, this House.
It is a little inconsistent, perhaps, in welcoming the acceptance of the Pilkington Report, as the Government accepted it as a whole as it stood, to complain that acceptance has involved the loss of a number of opportunities—a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) and the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt)—because part of the effectiveness of the acceptance of the Pilkington Report is that it was accepted as a whole. There may have been imperfections in it, and there may have been respects in which many hon. Members would have felt that those recommendations should have gone further or even, perhaps, have been somewhat different; but the essence of the Government's act was the acceptance of that Report as it stood as a whole—those were the words—and I believe that one cannot welcome that and at the same time go too far in criticising the result for the lost opportunities which are involved.
The Committee has shown a very kind and flattering desire to hear my hon. Friend and myself on the subject of the National Health Service on several occasions and al greater length. Without wishing to trespass upon the domain of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the


House, I am personally glad of that because, of course, as the Committee appreciates, in this debate we are very narrowly bound in by the rules of order, and, in particular, one cannot within the rules of order refer to savings. Perhaps, Mr. Diamond, I might in one sentence respond to what I think is in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) by mentioning to him that in the first public speech which I made in my present office I ventured to say that, in my opinion, the National Health Service was intended to be comprehensive, but that did not mean that it was intended to be exclusive. All the same, there are a large number of questions which have been asked and points which have been raised in the course of this debate which I can and will do my best to answer.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) asked about the arrears due to doctors in the hospital service. So far as those arrears relate to the period back to 1st January this year, I would expect them all to be paid before the end of this calendar year. I do not take so pessimistic a view as her informants as to the payment of the remainder, that is, the arrears back to 1st March, 1957, which, I hope, will also all have been paid out by the end of this financial year; in faith whereof the full amount of those arrears has been included in this Supplementary Estimate which, of course, refers only to this financial year.
But, I am sure it would also be accepted that fairness is of the essence of the distribution of those arrears. It is a very complicated calculation which the regional hospital boards have to make. I do not think any one of us would wish for the sake of a few weeks, however overdue these payments are, to lay ourselves open to the charge that the distribution was not as scrupulously right and fair as it could be made.
The right hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West devoted a good deal of their remarks to the £1 million, if I may so call it. The right hon. Lady once said that the Ministry had decided to set aside this sum, and she even said I had decided to set aside the sum, and she therefore logically went on to ask what I intended

to do with it. But that is not quite the situation. This sum arises out of a recommendation of the Pilkington Committee, that the remuneration of general practitioners which they recommended should be distributed in a manner to be agreed between the Health Departments and the profession, and in the course of the work of the Joint Working Party which was set up to implement that recommendation it was recommended that the sum of £1 million per annum should be reserved
so that further consideration can be given to methods of making the best possible general medical service available to the public".

Mr. Willis: Is that £1 million taken simply in England and Wales or does part come from Scotland?

Mr. Powell: The Great Britain figure was used because it was a Great Britain Working Party.
It went on to recommend that a "further Working Party of representatives of the profession and the Health Departments should be appointed to consider this matter."
The rather complicated recommendation that this sum should be set apart for the general purpose of improving general medical services, and secondly, that the manner in which it should be applied should be subject to further study, was welcomed in a very emphatic way by the General Medical Services Committee, and that recommendation, as my hon. Friend said, was accepted by the profession at the end of September.
So it would be an impertinence or worse on my part to indicate in advance of the work of that second working party how I as Minister of Health believe that the £1 million should be applied. That does not mean that the views which have been expressed on both sides of the Committee tonight are not of importance, and I feel sure that they will be given due weight by the working party when it comes to consider this matter.

Mr. Ross: Am I to understand that there is in the Estimate the Committee is being asked to vote £1 million which should be spent or required before 31st March, 1961, and that we are now being told by the Minister that he does not know how this money is to be spent?

Mr. Powell: Perhaps I ought to come clean with the Committee on this point


and with the right hon. Lady. The right hon. Lady was good enough earlier today to consult me on this matter, and I then, on the best advice which was available to me, informed her that the whole of the £1 million was included in the additional sums which I am asking in this Estimate. In fact I have later and, I believe, more accurate information, that little or none of that amount is included in this year's Supplementary Estimate.

Dr. Summerskill: rose—

Mr. Powell: Could I finish? I was further advised—and I gather, from the fact that we have all been allowed to proceed thus far, that I was advised correctly—that nevertheless, since this the sum here which is being asked for is in consideration of the general medical services, the right hon. Lady would not be out of order in developing her points. I therefore did not seek to avail myself of the narrow fact that little or none of the £1 million is included in this figure. And it has had the adventitious advantage that the Committee has been able to place on record, as I was just saying, its view, which I am sure will not be without effect on the way in which this sum can best be applied for the improvement of the general medical service.

Mr. Pavitt: I am still not quite clear about this. This sum of money for general practitioners includes back-pay to 1957 and is the overall sum due to the central pool. It is really the practioners' money and the Working Party has agreed that instead of distributing it to the general practitioners it is to be put aside. Does this mean that if this sum does not come into the Estimates this year the general practitioners are losing £1 million to which they are entitled this year, or does it mean that the Estimates are £1 million short because the sum has been carried over?

Mr. Powell: The position is exactly the same as with the £500,000 referred to earlier. The money is due. It belongs to the general practitioners, but as it will not, in all probability, be paid within the current financial year, as with the £½ million, it would not be appropriate to ask for it to be voted in the current financial year.

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot understand this. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is due. The Pilkington Committee recommended it, but the right hon. Gentleman says now it is not included in this financial year. Therefore, it means that the general practitioners must lose £1½ million.

Mr. Powell: It only means that the £1½ million due to them cannot be paid out to them in the course of the current financial year, because the manner in which it is paid out will not by thin have been decided in the manner recommended by the Joint Working Parties. But the profession is not losing anything of the £1 million which is part of the remuneration which the Pilkington Committee awarded to it.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman break the sum down? I have never known a Minister to behave as the right hon. Gentleman has behaved tonight. When he discovered that he had misinformed me, he said to the Committee that he thought he had better come clean. I have never heard such an extraordinary statement. Having told me one thing, the right hon. Gentleman just sat there and allowed me to develop a long argument knowing that the £1 million was not in the Estimate. He is now talking about £1½ million. Has the right hon. Gentleman not realised that the £500,000 for merit award has to be paid every year, but the £1 million presumably is being paid to improve general practice? Or is £1 million going to be used every year?

Mr. Powell: Yes, it is £1 million per annum.

Mr. Ross: We are in a very strange position now. Up to now, all this has been in order, but now that the Minister is coming clean we are all out of order. He says that the £1 million we are talking about is not in the Estimates, so this can hardly be in order. There is £1 million to be spent per year, including this year, for improving general practice. It therefore means that next year the Committee will have the estimate not only for the £1 million but also for this past year. How one can improve future services by paying more for the past retrospectively is beyond me.

Mr. Powell: Only that the Working Party must, in accordance with the agreement with the profession, be allowed to recommend the manner in which the £1 million is to be applied.
A number of hon. Members made the point, of which I took special note, that the House of Commons should have detailed information as to the result of the considerations of the Working Parties. I certainly take that point and would like to consider how, in due course, the result which is arrived at can best be made available.
The right hon. Lady went on to draw an analogy between what is recommended here by the joint Working Party and the hospital service, because the Working Party's recommendation refers only to the general medical service. There I think that we are limited by the actual recommendations of the Pilkington Commission and that it would not have been practicable within the terms of accepting that Report as a whole, as the Government undertook, to make the alterations which the right hon. Lady had in mind in the payment of doctors in the hospital service. She asked whether there was any reference in this Estimate to the domiciliary visiting of consultants and to the loading of conditions in favour of the part-time consultant. There are no increases in this Estimate in regard to domiciliary visits, and since weighting for part-time consultants is reduced in accordance with the recommendations of the Pilkington Commission, a fortiori there is no provision in this Estimate.
As to the £500,000 to which the right hon. Lady referred, that is a quite different subject from the £1 million. She called to the attention of the Committee certain special factors, and read out four which the Pilkington Commission mentioned in paragraph 342. Those relate to the £1 million about which we have been talking. The provisions for the application of the £500,000—the distinguished general practitioner payments—will be found in paragraph 345 onwards of the Pilkington Commission Report. These are a quite separate matter and a quite separate issue.

Dr. Summerskill: When the right hon. Gentleman reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will see that I made all this quite separate. I cannot quite understand how he has become confused between

the merit awards and the £1 million, an entirely different matter.

Mr. Powell: Yes, indeed. At any rate, I think that no harm has been done in emphasising that those are two separate considerations.
The right hon. Lady finally asked me whether I believed that the increases of which the reflection is found in the Supplementary Estimate will result in a sufficient increase in recruitment to the medical profession. I should not like to hazard a specific prediction, but I think there can be no doubt that the great improvement in conditions and prospects of the profession which will result from the implementation of the Report must have a beneficial effect upon both the quality and the numbers of the profession.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) asked me about Subhead B.1. It covers the administrative increases as well as the increases in pay to doctors under the Pilkington award. Those increases, if I might just mention the subject-matter of them to the Committee, are increases for domestic and ancillary staff, for administrative and clerical staff, for part-time nursing and midwifery staff, for occupational therapists, orthoptists and physio-therapists and, finally, for building labourers and craftsmen and for the works organisation staff. Therefore, those increases in the advances to the regional hospital boards will cover both the professional increases arising out of the Pilkington Report and the awards for other staff which have been made at various times and which it has not been possible until now to put into estimates.
I noted the point made by the hon. Member for Willesden, West about the relative emphasis upon teaching hospitals and regional hospitals. He will appreciate that, in working out the impact in year one of the Pilkington award, one has to take the establishments and the merit awards, and so on, as they stand and gross them up. But that is without prejudice to any developments and changes of relative emphasis which may be foreseen within the Service as a whole.
Although in dealing with this Estimate we are able to look only to the specific increases which they have thrown up under various subheads, I believe


I am right in saying that the Committee as a whole welcomes the Pilkington Commission's recommendations and the new opportunity, which I hope will be taken and not lost, which the acceptance of the award gives to all of us who are concerned with the National Health Service.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,665,600, be granted to Her Majesty

to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of Match, 1961, for the provision of national health services for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, &amp;c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including certain grants in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &amp;c., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

CLASS V. VOTE 10

National Health Service, Scotland

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,212,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the provision of national health services for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services.

10.30 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): In introducing this Supplementary Estimate, the first thing I want to say is that it covers the same ground for Scotland as that covered by the debate we have just had on the National Health Service in England and Wales.
The money we are asking for tonight is required for additional remuneration to Health Service staff. The total additional gross cost amounts to £5,912,000 and, as it is estimated that additional superannuation contributions amounting to £700,000 will become due on this, the net cost is £5,212,000.
The main item in this sum is what is required to implement the Royal Commission's recommendations on doctors' remuneration, which will cost us this year £5,124,000. There is also required a sum of £788,000 to meet Whitley awards.
The money required to cover the Royal Commission's settlement is almost equally divided between the medical staff employed in the hospital service and the general medical practitioners. The cost this year is about £2·2 million.
The settlement also provides for retrospective payments to cover the period from 1st March, 1957, when the Royal Commission was appointed, to 31st December, 1959.
A sum of £2·9 million is required to meet these retrospective payments and, again, this amount is divided more or less equally between the hospital medical staff and general medical practitioners.
The sum required for Whitley Awards, as my right hon. Friend has already explained in the case of England and Wales, represents the amount required to meet some dozen or more agreements, some covering technical and works staff employed in the Health Service and certain technical and clerical grades where the numbers employed are very small.
The major award included in this, requiring nearly half the total sum, is an award to domestic and ancillary staffs.
As the Committee will appreciate, the number and variety of staff employed in the Health Service covers a very wide range and the rates of pay are revised from time to time in the light of agreements made in the Health Service Whitley Councils.
In total this requires, in respect of agreements reached since the original Estimate was presented, £788,200.
The original Estimate for the National Health Service in Scotland was just over £64 million and, adding the increases to cover the settlement flowing from the Royal Commission recommendations and these other salary awards, the total now required is close on £70 million.
With this explanation, I trust that the Committee will approve the Supplementary Estimate for Scotland.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Can the Minister give us a further explanation of Subhead J.2 "Scottish Dental Estimates Board, £8,500"?

Mr. Galbraith: I shall be delighted to do that. The additional sum of £8,500 required is in respect of clerks and other administrative units. It is not in respect of dentists themselves.

10.36 p.m.

Miss Herbison: The Joint Under-Secretary has at least given a more detailed explanation of these Estimates than we had in the previous debate. It is quite clear that the largest sum in them is in respect of the Pilkington Report, and I would like to stress the point which has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend. There is a feeling among doctors in hospitals that there has been a tardiness in deciding how soon they were to have their increases paid to them. I know that the Minister tried to explain this away, but


I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary to ensure that everything possible is done to award those increases very soon. Many of the doctors concerned are very much worse off than the majority of general practitioners in Scotland, and that makes it all the more necessary to give them their increase.
I am glad that the general practitioners are getting this increase, because they form the backbone of the Health Service. A good general practitioner service should mean a good Health Service. Although there are many criticisms I could make on various points, I cannot do so in this debate, but it seems to me that it is not sufficient for the Minister to say that they accepted the Report as it stood and as a whole. He seemed to think that that was a good enough answer for not trying to get agreement between the doctors and the Ministry, or the doctors and the Scottish Health Department, on what might be done, as a result of these awards, to improve the service considerably. Those of us who are asked to pass these Supplementary Estimates feel that we cannot merely accept a statement made by the Minister.
The lists of some doctors are far too large, especially in areas where it is of the greatest importance that doctors ought not to have too many people on their lists. That question should have been discussed in a very friendly way with the doctors, and I should have thought that it might have led to an agreement for a reduction in the permitted number on a list.
Time and time again we have raised the question of group practice. Before the Minister came clean in this debate our English colleagues had to raise a number of questions on this matter. The Minister has not yet said that not a penny of this £1 million is included in the Scottish, English or Welsh Estimates. He just said, "Well, it is not all included." I want to take it for granted that perhaps some is included, and the Minister ought to tell us if it is not. If it is, I have the same right as may hon. Friends who represent English constituencies to raise certain questions.
There are a few suggestions I should like to make regarding ways and means of spending this money. There was a fund set up to help doctors to form group

practices. Where such practices have been formed it has led to a much better service. I can think of many areas in Scotland where a group practice would give the people a much better service than exists at present. If some of the £1 million is contained in the Estimate, will it be possible to get agreement that part of it might be used to set up group practices? I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to consider that.
I understand that the Working Party is to have representatives from the Department of Health for Scotland, the Ministry of Education and the general practitioners. I hope that forward-looking ideas will be proposed by the representatives of the Ministries. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the need for better facilities for those patients who have to wait in waiting rooms at surgeries, and there are many other ways in which improvements could be made in the Service.
I know that the increase in salaries is included in the Estimate. I have had discussions with a number of assistant doctors who are very worried about the position. Many of these assistants do the night work and have proved themselves invaluable to the doctors with whom they work. They believe that as a result of the way in which the Pilkington Report has been accepted and the money paid out they will not get the share they ought to receive. Will it be left to the doctors to decide whether any of this money is given to the assistants? They are the people for whom we have to speak because of the important work which they do.
I wish to turn to the Scottish Dental Estimate where the Minister is asking for £8,500. He states that this is money for the increase in the wages of clerks and members of the administrative staff and so on, and that it is not for the dentists. No doubt the Minister will have seen the statements in the Press only last week about the state of the teeth of Scottish children. I am certain that these statements came as a great shock to the Scottish people. I would not take responsibility away from parents. As with so many things, in the first instance parents have a real responsibility for their children in this matter, but, since we have the Scottish Dental Estimates Board, it seems that a certain


degree of responsibility rests on that board. What is it doing to try to get as much propaganda as possible over to parents, particularly, about the need to conserve children's teeth? I want the Minister to look at that, because not only is there a responsibility for the parents but for anyone who has anything to do with the Dental Health Service. Also, does the Minister think that there are enough dentists in the schools?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Diamond): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I think she is now going a little wide of the subject. The Supplementary Estimate must not be dealt with in that detail. I heard the Joint Under-Secretary say that this item referred to clerical services only.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry, Mr. Diamond; I thought that propaganda could come under these Estimates and that I could ask if these clerks were doing their job. One of the jobs I want the Scottish Dental Board to do is to ensure that everyone realises the importance of conserving teeth. I thought I might chance it and get in a word about the school dental service. I think the Joint Under-Secretary will be as concerned as I am about the shocking reports about the condition of the teeth of Scottish children.
I turn to the ambulance service. The Joint Under-Secretary will be aware of the number of questions which have boon raised in the House on this subject from time to time. We are being asked for an extra £14,000 for this service. We find that is because of the cost of contract services. Perhaps he will give a little explanation on that. When going into the cost of contract services, what steps does he take to ensure that ambulances are in good condition before they are used? There have been many complaints from this side of the Committee on that. What steps does he take to ensure that ambulances used under contract are properly manned? We should like to have that information before we decide that another £14,000 of public money from the taxpayer is spent on this service. In the main, the ambulance service in Scotland is a good one. I would not seek to denigrate it in any way, but there

have been glaring instances of where it was not nearly as good as it should be.
I hope the Minister will reply to the points I have raised. Like hon. Members who spoke in the earlier debate, I think we should debate fully how this £1 million each year—for it is not just £1 million once and for all—is to be spent to improve the general practitioner service. It would be a most worthwhile debate with many good ideas coming from both sides of the Committee.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I do not think any of us will vote against this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Why not?

Mr. Ross: I think we can assure the Joint Under-Secretary in regard to that. It may be that there will be "winds of change" and revolt from Edinburgh; I do not know. I urge that in future if we have a Supplementary Estimate which so changes the character of, say, Subhead B, the Minister will take the opportunity of revising the appendix which we had in the original Estimates to give us a far better idea exactly how the hospital service is affected. I recollect that on page 157 of the original Estimates there was an appendix giving fairly full details about the hospital service, and if the amended information had been given with this Supplementary Estimate, we need not have been questioning the Under-Secretary tonight. Subhead B refers to
Additional provision for increased remuneration".
How much of that is for nurses? In Scotland we are very concerned about the fact that nurses are far from satisfied with their salaries, and those who are interested would like to know how much of this money is in respect of increased salaries for nurses.
The appendix in the original Estimates informed us that the increased remuneration was for specialist services and nursing services and so on, and I should like the figure to be broken down so that we could find out how far our male and female nurses—whose conditions we cannot now discuss—are enjoying the benefit of this increased remuneration.


I hope that we shall not be told that all the extra money is for the doctors, or that, if we are, we will be told that something is to be done for the other services.
The question about Subhead F is whether the Under-Secretary has, or is about to, come clean. I have a feeling that this matter has already been thrashed out and I believe that to expand upon it would be out of order.
The Under-Secretary will remember that in the original Estimates £484,000 was provided as an additional contribution to the supplementary superannuation contribution. It was not an appropriation in aid, but a special employers' contribution, and I want to know whether, and if so how much, this Supplementary Estimate is in respect of the 1½ per cent. which was to cover the deficiency discovered in 1955.

10.55 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I want first to refer to the £14,000 which, we are told, is the cost of the contract ambulance services. The condition of the ambulances has already been mentioned, but I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can tell us how far, in allocating the money and making the contracts which are necessary to many of the ambulance services in Scotland, particularly in the West, he insists that the administration of the services should be as efficient as possible, to save patients unnecessary suffering.
I have had a number of cases in my constituency, and I have raised one or two cases with the hon. Gentleman and with the Western Regional Hospital Board. I must say that in each case I have had satisfactory answers that the matter is being looked at and reforms, where necessary, made. Nevertheless, the number of cases that occur leaves room for doubting the efficiency of the administration of the ambulance service, although it may well be that it is particularly in these services on contract that inefficiencies arise. I hope that in allocating moneys for these services, we can ask the Minister to pay particular attention during the remainder of the year to the effectiveness with which the ambulance services are organised.
We are also concerned about patients who are gravely ill—who are, perhaps, being transferred from hospital to home because they are so gravely ill that the

hospitals can do little more for them. We are concerned to find that it takes four or five hours to get them home because a gravely-ill patient is first picked up from a hospital, and the ambulance then circumnavigates Glasgow, for example, calling at other hospitals—and other towns—before taking that first patient home.
That will not do. It is surely appropriate that the Minister should make certain, when contracting for these ambulance services, that a guarantee is given that the comfort of the patient will be placed first, that the interests of the patient will be safeguarded, and that inefficiency which causes suffering will be eliminated.
My second complaint has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), and it concerns nurses' conditions and pay. We are told that some part of the advance under Subhead B is on account of Whitley Council awards, and that some part of it is to go to assistant nurses and midwives.
As the Minister knows, there has recently been a good deal of reference to nurses' conditions in the Scottish Press—in particular, in the Daily Record—and I have written to him on the matter. It seems to me that there is particular cause for concern if there should prove to be any grounds whatever for some of the complaints now being publicised. Several years ago there was set up a Government Working Party on conditions of work and the recruitment of nurses, and another on conditions for midwives.
One had hoped that as a result of the subsequent discussions of those Working Party Reports many of the matters—and many of them are financial matters—that are now being criticised and questioned, apparently, by nursing staffs in Scotland, had been ended. One had thought that conditions were satisfactory enough now for these complaints to be unnecessary, but perhaps I could just mention three or four of the complaints that seem to be recurring, and which are confirmed by letters I have had from constituents who are connected with women in the nursing profession.
For example, can the Minister find out whether nurses must pay for their transport when they are going to


examination centres? There are allegations that they must. How generally is that true? Another very minor matter—but a very effective irritant to a nurse on duty, I should imagine—is the rule that she must pay for some of the items of her equipment that she uses in her work—scissors, for example. Again, State-registered nurses, after becoming State-registered, do not receive—

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady, but it is difficult to see how the points she is now making can come within the Supplementary Estimate.

Mrs. Hart: I am sorry, Sir William. I had hoped that the matter of the administration by the regional boards would cover some of the costs under which this kind of reference might be made. But, of course, I at once accept your Ruling.
I hope that in administering the money that we are voting, the Minister will ensure that the spending of it is, generally, as efficient as possible; and, as efficiency includes creating conditions in which nursing staffs may work, I hope that he will consider all these points as carefully and as effectively as possible.
There are many matters of great concern in the Health Service in Scotland upon which we cannot touch this evening, restricted as we are by the rules of order. It is, however, highly necessary that in view of those great problems, those which can be covered by efficiency of administration and the efficient spending of money to its most effective purpose, should be met as carefully and as fully as possible by the Minister.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I should like to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in dealing with Subhead B, "Advances to regional hospital boards: Revenue Account", and to stress that there is no detailed provision in respect of nurses. I should like to know how much of this £3,039,000 is in respect either of additional nursing services or of increases in nurses' pay. When I was chairman of a hospital management

committee, we found great difficulty in implementing the recommendation to reduce nurses' hours from 48 to 44 per week, because the Minister's Department would not sufficiently increase the Estimate to cover the increased cost of providing additional nursing services when it was possible to recruit nurses.
I, too, have had representations made to me by constituents regarding the conditions that were publicised in the Daily Record. I also know that, while some of those complaints may be justified in certain areas, they are of a general rather than specific character. On a previous occasion, I had the opportunity to raise complaints about conditions in the East Fife area and had them remedied.
I ask the Minister, if I am within the rules of order in suggesting this—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is in great danger of getting outside the rules of order.

Mr. Gourlay: I have tried, as a new Member, to keep within the rules. I ask the Minister whether he would consider issuing a directive to the various hospital boards of management asking them to set up machinery whereby those grievances, if they exist, can be rectified without victimisation of the persons concerned.
My second point concerns Subhead J.2, the Scottish Dental Estimates Board. I should like to know whether this £8,500 includes the provision of a regional dental officer for the Fife area. Some time ago. I understand, when patients required special examination by regional officers, the officer had to travel all the way from Aberdeen to certain parts of Fife to examine patients. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary also to consider whether economy could be effected by arranging that once a patient has had an examination by a regional officer, if subsequent treatment is required the patient should not have to wait three weeks for a subsequent examination before the dentist can proceed with the necessary treatment.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that, while he is asking for a fair amount of additional money on account of regional hospital boards, there is no intention whatever of asking hospital patients to pay for their food while they are in hospital.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Galbraith: We have had a fairly full debate on this Supplementary Estimate and I will do my best to answer the various points which have been raised, although this will mean that my speech is rather piecemeal. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) regretted what she regarded as the tardiness in coming to a settlement on the outstanding money due to the profession. I assure the hon. Lady that it is the desire both of my right hon. Friend and of myself that we should come to a settlement on that as soon as possible.
I noted with interest the various suggestions which she made of ways in which the service could be improved, and, of course, it is just points like that which will be considered by the Working Party to which my right hon. Friend referred in discussing the Supplementary Estimate on the England and Wales Vote. In that respect what he said for England and Wales also applies to Scotland.

Miss Herbison: On this question of the salaries of doctors in hospitals, we in Scotland have many fewer doctors and hospitals. Surely it does not take the same time, therefore, to make the settlement in Scotland? Surely, they can be paid soon?

Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly look into that aspect to which the hon. Lady has just drawn my attention.
Another matter to which she referred was one in which I have a good deal of personal interest. She spoke of the shock she suffered on reading about the condition of children's teeth in Scotland. I am glad she suffered that shock, because everybody in Scotland was intended to suffer that shock and to realise the appalling condition of children's teeth in Scotland today.
Because it would be out of order I do not want to discuss the school dental service, but I agree with the hon. Lady that a certain amount of the trouble is due to parents allowing their children to eat far too many sweets.

Miss Herbison: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that matter—

Mr. Galbraith: Allow me to go on.

Miss Herbison: Still on dentists?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, I have not finished with dentists. The hon. Lady may not think it follows directly, but her hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) also referred to this matter, and he asked whether or not there would be provision within this Supplementary Estimate for a local dental officer in Fife and whether these figures would provide for his salary. In fact they do not do that. These are purely administrative figures. I am sorry that, for the time being, his worry will not be got over by these figures in this Supplementary Estimate.
The hon. Lady referred, as did her hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), to the ambulance services. I think they were worried—

Miss Herbison: Has the hon. Gentleman finished with the dentists? We just cannot leave the matter by saying that the children eat too many sweets. I think they are eating far too many sweets, and I hope that the parents will take warning, but I feel that the Government have a responsibility and that the Dental Estimates Board has a responsibility to ensure that much more propaganda and teaching are given, propaganda to the parents, and teaching in the schools, on this matter.

Mr. Galbraith: That is why I am so grateful to the hon. Lady for the forceful way in which she referred to this matter tonight, because what we say here in this Chamber is a form of propaganda, and I am sure that she, and her hon. Friends, and my hon. Friends, too, will do everything they can to bring this problem to the notice of the parents. I myself believe that at least as much can be done in the home as can be done elsewhere.
I should like to turn now to the ambulance services which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark referred to. I think they were worried by the reference to the cost of the contract services. As they both know, the ambulance services in Scotland are provided by the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance Brigade on a contract basis to the regional hospital boards, but the money referred to in the Supplementary Estimate is going—as the result of a Whitley


award—to the men who are running the services. I shall certainly look into the point which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark raised about the quality of the services in her area.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made the very reasonable point that perhaps we had not printed this Supplementary Estimate as fully and as well as we had printed the original Estimates. I shall certainly bear that point in mind far a future occasion. I have the figures of which he spoke, but I do not think that the Committee would wish me to read them all out. I can tell the hon. Member, however, that out of this £3 million odd the amount which will go to nurses is £82,000. Perhaps, however, I should "come clean" on this—as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has already come clean this evening—and say that this is in respect of part-time nursing staff. Therefore, I do not think that it really deals with the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark when she referred to the recent series of articles in the Daily Record. I assure her, however, that I am having that matter investigated and will write to her when my investigations are completed.

Mr. Ross: Surely it is very bad for the House of Commons to be presented with a Supplementary Estimate in which we are told that everything in a certain Subhead relates purely to the Pilkington Committee. This was what we were led to believe. No reference was made in connection with Subhead B to the fact that there was any additional provision for nurses. If we had been told that, we might have had an entirely different debate.

Mr. Galbraith: All I can do is to apologise to the hon. Member. If he had listened to my explanation he would have found that I said that the bulk of it was in respect of the Pilkington Report, but I also said that "There is a sum of £788,000 required to meet Whitley awards". This is one of those awards.

Mr. Gourlay: The hon. Gentleman mentioned £82,000 for nursing staff and particularly for part-time nurses. Can he give an assurance that, with the employment

of part-time nurses, there are no nurses in Scotland working more than the normal 44-hour working week?

Mr. Galbraith: I should not like to give that assurance without notice. I will certainly look into the point.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked also whether the 1½ per cent. was included for superannuation. The answer is that it is.

Mr. Ross: How much?

Mr. Galbraith: It costs some £200,000.
I think that I have more or less covered all the points raised in the debate. Those which I have not I will note and try to answer later. I am glad that the Supplementary Estimate has been welcomed by the Committee, in spite of various matters to which, naturally, attention has been drawn. I hope that the Committee will now allow us to have the Estimate.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central): Considerable play has been made about the dental service. Assuming that the public respond to the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), does the hon. Gentleman regard a Supplementary Estimate of £6,500 as adequate to meet the situation that would arise?

Mr. Galbraith: No, because the dental side of the Pilkington Report is not dealt with in this Supplementary Estimate. This is purely an administrative increase.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,212,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the provision of national health services for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, the sum of £42,877,600 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That for the remainder of the present Session the following paragraphs shall have effect:—

(1) There shall be a Standing Committee to be known as the Welsh Grand Committee to consider such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire as may be referred to them and to consist of all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire, together with not more than twenty-five other Members to be nominated in respect of each such matter by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard in such nomination to the approximation of the balance of parties in the committee to that in the whole House, and shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by them and to

appoint others in substitution for those discharged.
(2) A Motion may be made by a Minister of Crown at the commencement of public business, to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration, and if, on the question thereupon being put, not less than ten Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.
(3) If such a motion be agreed to, the Welsh Grand Committee shall consider the matter or matters to them referred on not more than four days in a Session, and shall report only that they have considered the said matter or matters.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE ON SPECIAL PURPOSES) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to amend section three hundred and thirty-nine of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, with respect to the purposes for which payments may be made thereunder, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to loyal government in Scotland.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ORSETT HOSPITAL, ESSEX

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakefield.]

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the future of Orsett Hospital in Essex. It is a subject which is causing worry and alarm to everyone who is connected with the hospital.
Orsett Hospital is a collection of old buildings, some of which were built as long ago as 1875. It was not intended to be a hospital. It was a workhouse, a casual ward for tramps, and a police station. Although during two world wars it was used as an emergency medical centre, no attempt was made to adapt it to general medical purposes until 1948, when the National Health Service was introduced. At that time the hospital, such as it was—ancient and inconvenient—was already far too small for the population it was meant to serve. The population then was 70,000. It has increased by more than 50 per cent.; today it is about 108,000. In five years time it will be 120,000.
The hospital is not only too small. It is woefully deficient in all essentials. I could provide the Minister with a long list of its deficiencies, but tonight I will mention only two or three outstanding ones.
There is one operating theatre, and what a grim and dismal place it is! The first time I saw it I was chilled to the marrow, and the doctor who was showing it to me remarked, "It is rather less cheerful than a primitive morgue." Further, it is most inconveniently situated. Persons requiring operations—for example, women in childbirth, housed in another block—often have to be carried through the grounds in the open air, in all weathers, to reach this grim theatre.
The X-ray department is equally bad. There are two units. The main one is, like the operating theatre, most inconveniently situated. The second unit is even worse. It is placed in the day room of a ward, through which walking patients must pass to reach the toilets. If the X-ray set is in use, they cannot use the toilets. If they are already there,

they cannot leave them until the all-clear is given by the radiographers.
The staff accommodation is so cramped, mean and uncomfortable that I often wonder why the staff remain there at all. Only their zeal and devotion can explain why the resident medical and nursing staffs submit to these conditions.
Finally, I mention the out-patients' department, which exists, but only just. People are just squeezed in wherever possible, and always in the greatest discomfort.
I am well aware that the Minister understands many of these deficiencies. He and his predecessors have agreed that the hospital should be extended and modernised. Four years ago the then Minister agreed that this scheme of extension and modernisation should be included in the centrally-financed general hospital building programme. During those four years there has been a very long series of negotiations, correspondence and deputations between the management committee, the regional board and the Ministry.
Ten months ago, namely, at the beginning of February of this year, final agreement was reached—at least, we thought it was—about what is described as stage I of the redevelopment plan. Stage I will include an operating theatre, a maternity block, and casualty and radiological departments.
That was ten months ago, but nothing has happened so far. There are plenty of nice designs on the drawing boards, but nothing has happened on the ground. We anxiously ask: how soon will the actual work begin? That is the first question I ask the hon. Lady. I shall ask only one other.
I want to make one final observation about the stages of the redevelopment plan. To divide the work into stages with an abrupt separation between the two, with no link or continuity, seems both illogical and wasteful. One example will suffice to show how illogical it is. In stage I, as I have already said, an operating theatre will be built; indeed, it will be an operating tower, because included in it will be a pharmacy and a central sterile unit. But no mention is made of the ward block. Presumably that will come in stage 2. It seems rather absurd


to build this theatre tower without at the same time approving its linking with the ward block, the lifts and the other parts of the hospital. Without this linking with the new ward block it is difficult to understand how the operating theatre will be used at all.
This division into stages is also wasteful in time and money. I hope that this argument will weigh with the Minister of Health, who is said to be very economically minded. I would never argue about the large sums of money spent on the National Health Service. I am one of those who think that not nearly enough money has ever been spent on it. But that does not mean to say that I want to waste money. All the builders and constructional engineers are certain that a huge saving could be made if the whole job were contracted for at the beginning and the actual staging left to agreement between the contractors and the board. There must be continuity, so that the scheme is sensibly planned from the beginning, with the least delay and the greatest saving.
As I said at the beginning, this delay and lack of continuity is causing grave alarm to all those who are interested in the hospital. I have spoken to most of the consultants, distinguished physicians and surgeons, the chairman and members of the management committee, members of the nursing staff, and many patients and others, and they are really alarmed. I hope that I have proved to the House tonight that they have some cause for disquiet. I hope that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some assurances, particularly on the two questions I have raised, which I now repeat: first, when will the actual work begin; and, secondly, may we have some assurance that once it is begun it will continue and not be divided into abrupt stages?

11.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): The hon. Member delivered some rather severe strictures on this hospital, but I gather from the information available to me that it is by no means adequate for the job it has to do. The full name of the Orsett Hospital is the Orsett branch of the Tilbury and Riverside General Hospital. The Orsett branch at present has a bed complement of 227

beds; the other branch at Tilbury is much smaller, having only 74 beds.
The Ministry has been well aware of the deficiencies at the Tilbury and Riverside Hospital. The Orsett branch is a former public assistance institution—as the hon. Member has said—of which the majority of buildings are outworn and completely inadequate. People of Orsett are being served, and beds are available, although there is an admitted shortage on the maternity side, and the ancillary services are inadequate. Facilities in most departments are grossly inferior, and few of the existing buildings are really worth retention, but there is ample room on the site for the erection of the necessary new buildings.
For these reasons the development of the Orsett branch was early given a place in the list of the major projects to be centrally financed and this was announced by the Minister in December, 1956. Prior to this considerable discussion was necessary on the site of the new development, about whether it should go on the same hospital site, and then followed the detailed discussions on the planning in relation to what was there already.
After discussions with the Ministry's officers at various stages of the preliminary planning, the regional hospital board has proposed a development plan which will convert the Orsett branch into a modern general hospital. This will involve virtually rebuilding it at a cost of over £1 million. It was decided to carry out this major development in two stages. Stage 1 will deal with the priority needs, and will consist of a new out-patient department, a new 60-bed maternity block, and a new accident department; with the ancillary services such as an operating theatre, a radiological department, a central sterile supply department, pathological department, and pharmacy needed to provide an efficient service as soon as possible. In addition, the most urgent need for residential accommodation for doctors and nurses will be met. This includes two bed-sitting hostels for sisters, two nurses' hostels, two doctors' houses and a bungalow for the matron.
The second stage, that is the second hall of the project, will consist mainly of a new ward block of about 200 beds which, with the improvement of those existing wards which will be retained,


will provide 344 beds. The present population in the area is 108,000, as the hon. Gentleman said, and it is being catered for without, we hope, too much inconvenience. But it is accepted that the population is growing and the proposed complement of 344 beds has been related to the forecast of a population of 120,000 in the area in 1971. More residential accommodation for nurses and doctors, and the less urgent services will be provided in stage 2.
The hon. Gentleman queried these provisions being divided into two stages. Although we should not necessarily have taken this work up in two stages if we were considering it now for the first time, there were financial reasons at the time which made it necessary and circumstances which justified—and would still justify—the decision. Not only was the money available sufficient only for the more urgent works I have already mentioned in stage 1, but the work had to be planned in such a way that the hospital could continue to function while the building is in progress. Although some extra beds seemed to be inevitable, it was considered that with the development of full out-patient and ancillary facilities, the ultimate need for beds might be somewhat different, depending on the population changes, from what seemed necessary at the time.
Separation of the work into two stages need not cause delay. The site is such that the priority needs could be met first, and this is what is being done in carrying out the development in two stages. The regional hospital board recognised from the outset that the outpatients' department was the most urgent need, and with that I think the hon. Gentleman concurs. Indeed, so much so that the board decided from the beginning to finance this part of the scheme from its own capital allocation. Planning was completed some months ago, and now the board is awaiting tenders. The preparation of working drawings for the rest of the first stage of the development is well advanced. That the board is well aware of the need is shown by the fact that it has given stage 2 of the development first priority on the list of schemes which it has submitted for consideration for inclusion in the Minister's list of centrally-financed projects.
As in all works of this nature, it is difficult, and even misleading, to give a firm date when building work may be expected to start, but the board hopes that it will be possible to start building the out-patients' department towards the end of the current financial year.

Mr. Delargy: When is that—in March?

Miss Pitt: It is in March.

Mr. Delargy: Is the hon. Lady aware that it was the firm opinion of most members of the management committee that work would already have begun last August? That is what we were led to believe, but now it is stated that it will be next March. What is the reason for the delay?

Miss Pitt: There has been considerable discussion on the plans, as I tried to make plain in the earlier part of my speech, to make quite sure that we had the right development of this site, and the out-patients' department is to come first. Work on the rest of stage 1 obviously will be begun later, but the board hopes that it will be able to start some time next year.

Mr. Delargy: That is on stage 2?

Miss Pitt: No, that is stage 1 which the board hopes to start next year. Stage 2 has not yet been accepted by my Ministry for central finance, although the board has put it at the top of the list of priorities it submits to us.
I want to deal with the minor points which the hon. Member raised and of which he kindly gave me notice. One was about the fact that maternity cases have to be wheeled across a yard to the operating theatre. That is so but the situation will be put right when we come to stage 2. The other point was about the X-ray unit which was so sited that people either could not get to the lavatory or, having got there, might be fenced in, as it were, while the X-ray unit was being used. I have also made some inquiries and I am told that it is true that one X-ray unit—mobile and not frequently used I should explain—is sometimes moved to other parts of the hospital and is at present operated in a day room through which patients have to pass to the lavatory. A scheme is in hand, however, for the erection of a


temporary building to rehouse this mobile set pending the provision of a new X-ray department, which is part of stage 1. This temporary building should be ready in a matter of months.
There has been delay in this project, but on the general situation, for the benefit of hon. Members interested in hospital building, I say that the general question of hospital planning very much concerns us. We have set up a development unit which is staffed by professional people. They have already prepared plans for hospital units which will be available for use or adaptation by hospital planning authorities. We hope that this will be useful both in the preparation of plans and in our agreeing them and that it may help to avoid delay in future.
In conclusion, it is understandable that the people of Thurrock feel that it is an unconscionable long time before they can see some building work being carried out on their hospital. They are naturally impatient at having to put up with what we all admit to be bad hospital accommodation. In April this year the building works committee of the North East Metropolitan Hospital Board met a deputation from Thurrock Urban District Council. I understand that there was a very full discussion about the hospital and that the board's representatives explained what was being done. It must be remembered that it is in the early planning stages that the shape of the hospital is formed. Errors of judgment at that stage which might be avoided—and I hope have been avoided—by thorough discussion would mar the hospital service for the rest of the long

working life of the hospital buildings. So I believe there has been value in this detailed discussion.
There was, therefore, long and detailed discussion between officers of the board and of the Ministry during the early stages of the planning of this hospital at a time when there was a ferment of ideas about hospital planning, including the important part which hospital design plays in avoiding dangers of cross-infection.
Some measure of the change of plans resulting from this may be obtained when I say that the original proposals were for improvements to the hospital estimated to cost about £350,000. The scheme which has now come to fruition is for a largely rebuilt modern hospital at a cost of more than £1 million. We agree that the preliminary planning has taken a long time, but the result, we hope, will be a hospital worthy of the busy developing area of Thurrock.
In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to the service that the hospital staff has given and is giving with particularly difficult living and working conditions. Great credit is due to the staff and the hospital management committee for the way in which they have made the most of their inadequate facilities.

Mr. Delargy: Will the hon. Lady impress upon her officials the need for continuity in the work once it begins?

Miss Pitt: Yes, Sir. I will do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.